Trump releases policy paper on Second Amendment...

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing is for sure. Reading the news headlines this weekend, Trump has the anti-gunners all SORTS of riled up.

Can't help but smile about it, either; this statement most certainly caught the anti's off-guard because the last time he spoke about guns (a decade and a half ago) he was a little to the left of moderate, on gun control.
 
Yeah if nothing else he's good at keeping the attack dogs away from the other candidates. Cruz could probably eat a live kitten at a rally and the news would cover Trump instead.
 
If he said he would modify, or repeal GCA 1968, and roll back our ridiculous gun control laws that would have impressed me. Removal of the "sporting purposes" clause would be a good start. So un-Constitutional.
 
If he said he would modify, or repeal GCA 1968, and roll back our ridiculous gun control laws that would have impressed me. Removal of the "sporting purposes" clause would be a good start. So un-Constitutional.

POTUS cannot unilaterally repeal laws or parts of laws. BUT the executive branch has responsibility for enforcement of laws. In the recent case of the lack of immigration enforcement (i.e. sanctuary cities), the law say one thing while the actions of executive branch as well as some state and local governments seem to differ greatly. Similar to states who ignore the federal ban on cannibals. No law has been repealed, yet we seem to have "de-facto repeal in some states" by this administration's lack of enforcement.

chuck
 
I think many posted good points but as Sam1911 politely reminded us, we need to keep the discussion specific to 2A/RKBA or this thread like so many others will be closed.
Sam1911 said:
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.

I think it's important to keep reminding us who are enemies are and who are allies to 2A/RKBA. ;)
jerkface11 said:
It's hard to support the RKBA when you're voting for anti-gun politicians. And as long as the DNC has gun control as part of their platform every Democrat politician is anti-gun by default.
 
I genuinely think you guys are in disbelief simply because you can't comprehend that republicans are doing this good and deep down inside you've grown to expect to lose.

Doing good? Republicans' favorability continues to fall. The last poll I saw puts them at 32% favorable compared to 48% favorable for Democrats. In the debate they almost completely ignored the number one concern for Americans (the economy) and instead focused on wedge issues that they hold positions that are popular among Republican primary votes but unfavorable to the general public. That is pretty normal but because Trump is involved you have 20 million people watching instead of 2 million.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/23/gops-favorability-rating-takes-a-negative-turn/

(Notice gun policy is one of the issues that Republicans lead strongly but it didn't even come up)
 
If he said he would modify, or repeal GCA 1968, and roll back our ridiculous gun control laws that would have impressed me. Removal of the "sporting purposes" clause would be a good start. So un-Constitutional.

Please reread my Post #42. I will repeat that the real power in Washington , D.C is with the Congress.

Republicans control the House of Representatives. However control of Senate is not enough. The Republicans in the Senate need sixty (60) seats to overcome any filibusters so any bill relaxing gun laws are far from certain. Enough pressure on Democrats from the people in their Districts might change their votes or at least prevent a filibuster.
 
POTUS cannot unilaterally repeal laws or parts of laws. BUT the executive branch has responsibility for enforcement of laws. In the recent case of the lack of immigration enforcement (i.e. sanctuary cities), the law say one thing while the actions of executive branch as well as some state and local governments seem to differ greatly. Similar to states who ignore the federal ban on cannibals. No law has been repealed, yet we seem to have "de-facto repeal in some states" by this administration's lack of enforcement.

chuck
I know that, but if he would say that he would lobby Congress for that, I would vote for him. Until then, he is a Sullivan Act supporting New Yorker to me, no matter what he says.
 
I genuinely think you guys are in disbelief simply because you can't comprehend that republicans are doing this good and deep down inside you've grown to expect to lose.

With sincerity and all due respect, I think you and some others in this thread are either so enveloped in the far right bubble or in a state of denial it is impossible for you to realize how much insidious damage Trump is doing to the Republican Party. I don't think for a second he is doing this to help Clinton or the Democrats. Trump is an egotist lacking in real empathy. He is resorting to demagoguery of the issue of the RKBA and other issues so as to appear to care about issues his supporters have concerns about. He well knows that whatever happens on these issues it will not make a bit of difference to his family's lifestyle and that is the only thing he really cares about. He wants to be president to feed his insatiable ego, not for the benefit of the country. I hope people will not support him because of his appearance of greater support for the RKBA at the expense of all the damage he would do to the country on equally important issues.
 
"Rick Perry was the man"
Rick Perry was the man in charge when the Texas state government was highly opposed to open carry, and even said he disagreed with Abbott's decision to endorse it. He's very much in the "pro-status-quo" camp on gun rights in Texas (and presumably would prefer to see a similar scheme nationally, which is somewhat pro-gun, relatively speaking).

There's three different sides of the issue; anti-guns, pro-guns, and pro-status quo. We've been on the defensive for so long that we foolishly lump the latter two together. I think that, for a change, we are now in a place of sufficient popularity that we should start expecting truly pro-gun positions from our elected officials.

"It's hard to support the RKBA when you're voting for anti-gun politicians. And as long as the DNC has gun control as part of their platform every Democrat politician is anti-gun by default."
Pro-gun politicians of either party never picked this fight (though Prohibitionist Republicans laid the groundwork, and Progressive Democrats the motivation). I don't think this fact can be overstated enough. Gun control was birthed, raised, grown, and trained almost entirely by Democrat politicians since the Sullivan Act first crawled from the New York City sewers into the daylight. Unlike practically every long standing contentious issue (money policy, military policy, civil rights, foreign policy) the one constant has been the Democratic Party's support for increasingly oppressive gun control laws with the sole purpose of destroying American gun ownership by civilians.

"I will repeat that the real power in Washington , D.C is with the Congress."
Congress is so powerful any more that one party must have a super-majority of both houses simultaneously in order to bring its entire authority to bear as a focused, unified laser beam, for its opposition to have any semblance of a practical restraint upon Executive actions. For all the laws congress passes, the executive's bureaucrats are ultimately charged with enforcing them. And for all the power of judicial review in restraining law, the executive's bureaucrats get to interpret them first. In fact, it is now standard practice for both congress and the courts to give enormous deference to the desires of the executive when crafting laws left purposely vague, and to be enforced by new executive agencies. Ever since executive Departments started proliferating around WWI, more and more power has been ceded to the executive branch.

Like I said, all the 'sporting purposes' rules ultimately bow to the discretion of the president, who could direct his AG/ATF director to ban all 12ga shotguns, or who could allow all manner of ballistic imports into the nation, unfettered. If they are stricken down, that authority evaporates and goes back to the people & congress, but for now represents a massive transfer of power that bears directly on the 2nd Amendment.

TCB
 
[snark] I would vote for whoever wrote that policy paper. [/snark] But I did not like Trump as a person before he was a candidate and I can't see myself warming up to him as a candidate. I grew up under Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy as models of presidential. Trump makes me miss Richard Nixon. BTW who would be First Lady under a Trump Administration?

But, all that aside, it is a good position paper.

As far as supporting Trump, I hate these "lesser of two evils" election cycles, or waiting to tipped over by a "Dukakis in a tank" episode. For the record, I have voted for Dem and Rep, based on who I felt best represented me and mine. No blind party loyalty and I hate machine politics.
 
"NONE of the other candidates who have or have held public office have done ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to deserve a promotion"
Well, that's what happens now that we've made the office of President so powerful, with so many responsibilities; it is probably beyond the worth of any mortal man (especially those so inclined to seek it). What would today's president be responsible for if we didn't expect him to; 'grow' the economy, 'protect' the environment, repair the social safety net, look after the nation's infrastructure, drive the development of new technology...not to mention set the tone of foreign policy, direct the military against foreign/domestic threats, and direct the enforcement of laws, as originally planned?

Think how many 'issues' we have to pick between wouldn't even be 'issues' if the president wasn't trying to be so many things he was never supposed to be in the first place. It'd make our decision process much simpler, and we'd have a larger pool of suitable candidates.

TCB
 
I grew up under Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy as models of presidential. Trump makes me miss Richard Nixon. BTW who would be First Lady under a Trump Administration?

Me too. If only we had an Eisenhower, but unfortunately he would be considered to liberal by too many Republicans as determined by current G.O.P. political positions. As fatally flawed as Nixon was he at least understood the realities of Realpolitik. Trump's First Lady would be a trophy wife immigrant who married for money and citizenship.

For the record, I have voted for Dem and Rep, based on who I felt best represented me and mine. No blind party loyalty and I hate machine politics.

Ditto.
 
The man isn't spending $100million dollars to secure the republican nomination just so he can give Hillary the presidency.

If there's something he wants out of the Oval Office he is in a position sign for it himself from behind the desk
$100 Million to Donald Trump is like you or I buying a new car. I dont think its inconceivable in the slightest that he would use a small portion of his fortune to help a long standing friend to elect her the first female US President. The policy outlines he has released in the last 6 months are so far out of line of the historical views of Donald Trump that it is hard to believe they came from Donald Trump. To me and a lot of other people all he is doing is stirring up a <deleted> storm to make the Republicans look like a bunch of clowns. I fully expect him to pull a Perot and split the Republicans after the primaries and run as an independent despite his claim he will not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I find so funny (sad) is that we have been lied to some many times we have become bitter. What if he is saying what he really believes? He stands on the national stage and says the 2A speaks for itself. Yet instantly people assume he's lying or just trying to get votes. How does someone without a voting record convince some of you that he is sincere? So far I have seen him say he is pro 2A, pro military, pro veterans. Anti illegal (not "undocumented") immigration. He's paying for his own campaign (something that hasn't happened in a long time). He calls the media what they really are, and they still show up. Why? Because he was right and he proves it every day. The media only cares about one thing....ratings.

Sure he's a hot head. Maybe even narcissistic. Aren't they all? They all stand up there and talk about how great they are...But he's not apologizing for America's greatness. I think he's really trying to just do what others have done to distance themselves from other candidates in the past. He's just doing it differently. And it's working. Pro-gun, pro-military, simplify the tax code, punish illegals, make America great again, and end that stupid treaty with Iran. If he's lying, then we can fix that. If he's telling the truth, Amen.
 
It really comes down to one of two choices.

Continue down the "moderate" broad appeal road that the GOP has been hoping to pay off for the past 15 years that has done nothing but bring defeat and dwindling support.

Or get back to core values that historically brought us success in the past.


I will tell you this. Only one candidate on that stage has the clout to run against a Clinton. The others are just Romney 2.0
 
Or get back to core values that historically brought us success in the past.

Getting back to "core values" flies in the face of the reality the the general population is moving in the other direction, especially on the social issues that Republicans love to talk about. Continue to move right, continue to lose.

What did Republicans talk about in the debate? Immigration, abortion, sending troops to Syria. All losing subjects in the general election. Republicans should be talking about things that the public agrees with them on: the economy,taxes, debt, gun control, etc. Republican's fiscal policy is a winner, social issues are a losing subject.
 
Getting back to "core values" flies in the face of the reality the the general population is moving in the other direction, especially on the social issues that Republicans love to talk about. Continue to move right, continue to lose.



What did Republicans talk about in the debate? Immigration, abortion, sending troops to Syria. All losing subjects in the general election. Republicans should be talking about things that the public agrees with them on: the economy,taxes, debt, gun control, etc. Republican's fiscal policy is a winner, social issues are a losing subject.


Then the party is already irrelevant and should go down in a blaze of glory.

Trying to out dem the dems isn't going to do anything but perpetuate the parties downward spiral.

Funny you should mention social issues. For the most part trump is far left of all those Ned Flanders impersonators who get on stage with the expectation that wearing their religion on their sleeve is some kind of qualification for office


What is that quote about the definition of insanity? Keep doing the same thing expecting different results and all that jazz
 
Then the party is already irrelevant and should go down in a blaze of glory.

I doubt the chamber of commerce, international corporations, and billionaires that fund the party will agree.

Funny you should mention social issues. For the most part trump is far left of all those Ned Flanders impersonators who get on stage with the expectation that wearing their religion on their sleeve is some kind of qualification for office

Is he? We won't know until his policy writers decide how he feels on those issues.

What is that quote about the definition of insanity? Keep doing the same thing expecting different results and all that jazz

Yes it is. The Republican party has continued to move right and continued to lose on the national stage. The solution isn't to move even farther right.
 
Are you watching the same Republican Party I am.

Because I seem to recall the last two presidential candidates being utter RHINOS. You know the two that LOST one of which to the most unpopular incumbent in history

YOU are the problem. You look at someone like John Boehner and think "we need more of that"
 
[MOD TALK: Last warning. Keep it on GUNS. Drift off any more into social issues and getting the thread shut down will be the least of concerns... Gracious thanks.]
 
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.
 
Rick Perry, while governor of Texas, is (was) the only candidate for POTUS 2016 who killed a coyote that attacked him while running. With a .380, no less. Trump that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top