Trump promises 2A sanctity in victory speech

[Dave Workman]

(This is not an endorsement!)

Chiseled in granite: Clinton is vulnerable, Trump is serious

Tuesday night's New Hampshire primary results didn't just suggest that Hillary Clinton is vulnerable, the numbers proved it, and according to the New York Times, victor Bernie Sanders beat her among nearly every demographic group.


<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Ralgha]

Never thought I'd say it, but I think I'd prefer Trump over the other lunatics.

 

[Dave Workman]

NY Times: Majority of New Hampshire GOP voters fear another terror attack

The New York Times is reporting today in the wake of Donald Trump's smashing victory in the New Hampshire primary that Republican voters "overwhelmingly express fear of another terrorist attack" and there is a message and moral in that.


<broken link removed>

 

[FortRock]

Yeah right along with imminent domain justification and a national health insurance for everybody.....except him and other elitists. I do not believe anything he says. He is a Trojan Horse for the Demo-commies.

 

[Diamondback]

Like he PROMISED he wouldn't bail on his business partners and leave them holding the bag for HIS debt?

BULL-F****ING-S***! *Mike Ditka voice* "And that's all I'm gonna say about that!" *mike drop*

 

[PaulB47]

Republican voters "overwhelmingly express fear of another terrorist attack"

Of all the things to fear, sheesh. Might as well worry about getting hit by a meteor.

As to Trump's promise to protect the 2nd Amendment, we've heard it before. GHW Bush, Reagan, etc. Politicians lie...

 

[Martini_Up]

Is Trump a politician? He's never held office. He is a successful business man who's made billions.

What have the other choices done which makes them a better choice? Hillary? Bernie? Bush III? That fat guy from NJ?

If just one fact that stands out which makes him less likely to lie about the things he's saying and it's Trump is least likely to get paid off by special interests behind the scenes. Why would he need to make a few million on the side for a few speeches as so many other politicians do? I wold say he doesn't and wouldn't.

I'm still are not sure who I'll vote for but I can guarantee it won't be for a lesser of evils.

 

[PaulB47]

He's running for President - he's a politician.

You are right, there is no good choice. That's one reason I don't vote in these races.

I once made the case that it is actually better to lose an election than to win:
http://strike-the-root.com/its-better-to-lose-election-than-to-win

 

[CHLChris]

There aren't a lot of issues that this is true with me for Trump, but I 100% believe him on guns. I believe he is completely genuine on our most important issue.

I don't trust him on successfully picking Supreme Court nominees, though.

 

[Diamondback]

Even though as recently as two years ago he was just another Bloomer?

 

[Martini_Up]

Even though as recently as two years ago he was just another Bloomer?

People change. Bruce Jenner, for example...

 

[ThePhonMan]

So who do you trust more...

The people who have a stellar track record of trying to deny you your 2A rights and are now trying to out-left the other candidate on stripping your 2A rights and adopting Australia-like confiscation
Or
People who are promising (out loud, in public and on tape) that they will stand up for your 2A rights but haven't taken action to restrict them in the past (and Christie and Romney aren't running anymore so we can drop that argument)

I'm not saying the R's will or won't keep their promises but I know the other team absolutely will keep theirs and all it takes is another SCOTUS appointment by Hitlary or Bernie and we're all screwed for a generation.

I've said this dozens of times on this site, there is a HUGE difference between people who are actively pursuing an agenda to strip away the 2A in any way and at any cost and people who consider the 2A as important as any other right but may not be militant enough for some single-issue voters. You figure out which candidate fits in which camp and vote accordingly.

 

[CHLChris]

I have no evidence, but I have sense that he might have put on leftism like a protective suit in NYC. I have feeling that he was always more rightist than he let on. I am thinking a lot of people think this same thing. Maybe the leftist junk was just a lie and this pro-gun stuff is really true.

 

[PaulB47]

I'm not saying the R's will or won't keep their promises but I know the other team absolutely will keep theirs and all it takes is another SCOTUS appointment by Hitlary or Bernie and we're all screwed for a generation.

This is the argument that it is better to drive toward socialism (or tyranny, or fascism) at 50mph than at 100mph. This argument does have some plausibility - if you would rather let your children deal with revolution, than dealing with it ourselves. Sometimes though, it's actually better to heat up the boiling frog quickly, so he jumps out.

 

[Diamondback]

People change. Bruce Jenner, for example...

Let's see him write a fat check to SAF then.

 

[Dave Workman]

Thinning the herd: Five viable GOP candidates left standing

Wednesday's departures from the Republican primary race by Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie leave five "viable" GOP candidates, according to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, suggesting that Dr. Ben Carson might consider bailing out as well.


<broken link removed>

 

[ThePhonMan]

This is the argument that it is better to drive toward socialism (or tyranny, or fascism) at 50mph than at 100mph. This argument does have some plausibility - if you would rather let your children deal with revolution, than dealing with it ourselves. Sometimes though, it's actually better to heat up the boiling frog quickly, so he jumps out.

I don't look at it as a lose lose situation. I look at it as it is better to put semi-reasonable people in office and attempt to hold them accountable than foment revolution for revolution's sake.

The stuff Reagan and Bush 41 did would have serious problems now with the Internet and a much wiser and involved 2A constituency. Just look at the attempt to ban 62gr 5.56 ammo. Who knew that a bunch of keyboard jockeys could help stop that lunacy. We've all seen the social experiment that was the AWB and restrictive laws in places like Chicago and DC. Only fools would continue to think guns are the problem yet we have one party that has bought in completely to that argument. Crime is already illegal so making it more illegal is stupid.

Maybe I just have more faith in my fellow man than others but I'm not willing to give up just yet and go to guns blazing.

 

[PaulB47]

Ah, you think we have a way out of this place without revolution. OK, but I don't think so myself. And it's not primarily about RKBA either, it's about our debt-ridden economy. At this point we are just going over the cliff. Hope you have plenty of food and water and ammo.

Anyway, Obama and Clinton have been FAR better for RKBA than say, GW Bush or Reagan. That was certainly not their intention, but it was their effect. This is because Americans are ornery and don't like to be pushed around. Bush and Reagan just put gun owners to sleep.

The other thing is that we as individuals can do virtually nothing to affect what happens. It is like standing in the ocean and commanding a wave to stop. Whatever the future holds for us, it is going to roll over us. I prefer to ignore the political process (except as a form of entertainment) and work in more productive areas.

Oh, and "semi-reasonable" people do not impress me. Even a reasonable person, put into the position of ultimate power, is going to dislike armed peasants. That's just the nature of the position.