The Donald On guns/2A released.

[WillBrink]

He's put out an official position paper:

PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights)

Attempting to position himself as a staunch 2A supporter, which he's clearly not always been. From his book The America We Deserve circa 2000, his position was:


"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. 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. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

Compared to your classic anti gun types, not the worst, but still clueless. So has he simply changed his views over time or is he just pandering then and pandering now? I hope for the former but frankly feel it's the likely the latter.

[jmp45]

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.

That's one more reason to pass on the trumpster.

[titsonritz]

Yeah but now he is a born-again Republican. :lol:

[WillBrink]

Yeah but now he is a born-again Republican. :lol:

Like Romney, who would change his positions as the political winds dictated? Maybe Trump has had time to think about, did a little research and genuinely changed his views on the issue. Or, he's a pandering opportunist like the rest of them.

[titsonritz]

I don't trust Trump one bit, as far as I'm concerned the only good thing about his POTUS run is he's stirring the PC pot.

[MountainRaven]

Trump is a salesman. He's selling himself, so he's saying what he thinks people want to hear. Nothing more, nothing less.

[titsonritz]

Trump is a salesman. He's selling himself, so he's saying what he thinks people want to hear. Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly. The current WH occupant pretty much did the same thing and we see how the turned out.

[AKDoug]

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. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record." This exists already. I am an FFL and I almost exclusively use the E-Check online system for my NICS checks. I started using it because it has become faster than using the phone line, plus I can print out the proceed or deny information and attach it to the 4473. These buffoons need to stop talking about background checks. They exist, and they work just fine. I could forgive him on this one because not everyone knows how the system works.

I cannot forgive anyone who thinks an "assault" weapon ban of any sort will do anything positive.

See 'ya Trump.

[PatrioticDisorder]

He's put out an official position paper:

PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights)

Attempting to position himself as a staunch 2A supporter, which he's clearly not always been. From his book The America We Deserve:


"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. 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. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record."

Compared to your classic anti gun types, not the worst, but still clueless. So has he simply changed his views over time or is he just pandering then and pandering now? I hope for the former but frankly feel it's the likely the latter.

Welp, there goes my support for him. I cannot believe even if he feels this way deep down, he'd actually take this position. Someone in his campaign must be high or something, that is not a position in line with "most Americans." Universal background checks, waiting periods and banning "assault weapons" is going to sink his ship.

[wildcard600]

Well, he's lost my vote.

[KalashniKEV]

???????


GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans.

[KalashniKEV]

Brink- did he update the page, or are you perpetrating a fraud?

It would seem that Trump is in strong opposition to the above...

[Firefly]

Yep. Peanut Butter Plutonium.
My begrudging vote is GONE.

Any gun control is off the table for me BTDT. Nah...not all of us live in literal Tower.

[WillBrink]

Welp, there goes my support for him. I cannot believe even if he feels this way deep down, he'd actually take this position. Someone in his campaign must be high or something, that is not a position in line with "most Americans." Universal background checks, waiting periods and banning "assault weapons" is going to sink his ship.

Make sure to read the difference however. The link is his "new" position from his site positioning him as very pro 2A, and text above from his book circa 2000. So maybe he changed his mind. I don't care if you support him per se, just didn't want you to lose interest due to any confusion from what I posted. :cool:

[FlyingHunter]

Here's his current 2A policy statement form his website:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

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.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.

We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.

[WillBrink]

Brink- did he update the page, or are you perpetrating a fraud?

It would seem that Trump is in strong opposition to the above...

Pay attention bro. His page linked is his new position which positions him as Mr Pro 2A. The quote posted was his position via his book circa 2000:

http://www.amazon.com/The-America-Deserve-Donald-Trump/dp/1580631312

Hence, he's changed his positions to fit the political winds to garner support vs having a legit moral core per comments made here. He's Romney with bad hair.

Or, maybe he's actually changed his views. You can give him the benefit of the doubt on that as you wish sir.

[FlyingHunter]

He's Romney with bad hair.

Now thats funny...

[wildcard600]

Well thats what i get for not reading the op closely enough. I will give him the benefot of the doubt, and that he has genuinely changed his viewpoint in the last 15 years.

Charleton Heston was a pretty big proponent of tue GCA'68 and he later became the pres of the NRA. Cant always judge people by actions and opinions held many years prior.

[HKGuns]

Cant always judge people by actions and opinions held many years prior.

No you really can't......my views on some things have changed over the last 10 years. A lot of views are founded out of ignorance. If you are willing to listen, learn and perhaps be wrong, you will be surprised at how your views evolve.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Well thats what i get for not reading the op closely enough. I will give him the benefot of the doubt, and that he has genuinely changed his viewpoint in the last 15 years.

Charleton Heston was a pretty big proponent of tue GCA'68 and he later became the pres of the NRA. Cant always judge people by actions and opinions held many years prior.

Makes a HUGE difference, it's what I explain to people who've never lived in a group think leftist area. He may or may not have even believed some of those left leaning views reported about Trump. There is a lot of social pressure to say and act a certain way, much of the behind the scenes deals Trump needed to schmooze, something that would have been difficult if not impossible if he'd come out as a conservative.

Even if he held some of those views, I'm very embarrassed to say this, but at one time I considered myself "pro gun" yet believed mandatory training was needed for someone to own a gun along with some other views that I'd like to punch my younger self in the face for... Group think in a far left area can absolutely brainwash someone & warp their views.

[.46caliber]

I'm so sick of the phrase "common sense" being used by politicians. They use it in a manner to say, "if you disagree, you're an idiot". It's dismissive. I'm tired of it, on both sides.

I don't trust Trump. In his current stance, he speaks about the background check systems being only as good as the records within and mentions both criminal and mental health records. I want an explanation of the latter before I'll entertain it. Is he talking about diagnosed disorders that are linked to violent behavior like schizophrenia or bi-polar or are we talking an anti-depressant prescription for someone who just lost a spouse?

And the big question has already been posed, why the change of heart regarding the term "assault weapon". My gut tells me it's vote pandering, but I'd love to be wrong.

The 2A is an issue where I want the candidate to hold an unwaivering position, across time. What he says now is on the same page I am, but that wasn't what he's always said so I'm naturally going to look at him sideways on the matter. I'd be very interested to hear him speak about the apparent change. Did he not mean how it sounded back in 2000, or did he have a change of stance and why?

[Waylander]

I'm not defending Trump in the least but look at Reagan's record. That's not a slight against Reagan either.

ETA:
I was referring to Reagan changing his mind on a few issues as he got older from the time he was the Governor of California, not his positions on guns.

[KalashniKEV]

Well thats what i get for not reading the op closely enough.

I don't think the intent was stated clearly, if the intent remains the same and hasn't been twisted...


Pay attention bro.

Really? I think you just got caught perpetrating a fraud, bro.

Post #15 contains Trumps platform as it relates to RKBA.

Are any other candidates in the race as solid as he is?

[7.62NATO]

I'm so sick of the phrase "common sense" being used by politicians. They use it in a manner to say, "if you disagree, you're an idiot". It's dismissive. I'm tired of it, on both sides.

I don't trust Trump. In his current stance, he speaks about the background check systems being only as good as the records within and mentions both criminal and mental health records. I want an explanation of the latter before I'll entertain it. Is he talking about diagnosed disorders that are linked to violent behavior like schizophrenia or bi-polar or are we talking an anti-depressant prescription for someone who just lost a spouse?

And the big question has already been posed, why the change of heart regarding the term "assault weapon". My gut tells me it's vote pandering, but I'd love to be wrong.

The 2A is an issue where I want the candidate to hold an unwaivering position, across time. What he says now is on the same page I am, but that wasn't what he's always said so I'm naturally going to look at him sideways on the matter. I'd be very interested to hear him speak about the apparent change. Did he not mean how it sounded back in 2000, or did he have a change of stance and why?

The disorders in bold are not linked to violence. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence, rather than perpetrate said action.

[.46caliber]

The disorders in bold are not linked to violence. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence, rather than perpetrate said action.

I never took a real psych class, my point was to raise the questions about what he means and intends by discussing mental health records in connection with firearm background checks.

I'm of the understanding though, that there are some mental conditions or disorders that do cause or make the afflicted more prone to violent behavior.

[7.62NATO]

Trump wants to fix background checks. Background checks violate our natural right to keep and bear arms, and must be scrapped.


BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

[7.62NATO]

I never took a real psych class, my point was to raise the questions about what he means and intends by discussing mental health records in connection with firearm background checks.

I'm of the understanding though, that there are some mental conditions or disorders that do cause or make the afflicted more prone to violent behavior.

A better predictor of future violent behavior is a history of any kind of violent behavior.

[KalashniKEV]

Trump wants to fix background checks. Background checks violate our natural right to keep and bear arms, and must be scrapped.

Nobody with a clean record has anything to fear from a background check- provided it is instant and accurate... which today it is not.

Trump is exactly right.

I know I would have liked to NICS the last guy I sold a pistol to...

How do you make it not-a-record of firearms transactions? Make it for all purposes. 1-800-NOT-A-FELON. Done.

[7.62NATO]

Nobody with a clean record has anything to fear from a background check- provided it is instant and accurate... which today it is not.

Trump is exactly right.

I know I would have liked to NICS the last guy I sold a pistol to...

How do you make it not-a-record of firearms transactions? Make it for all purposes. 1-800-NOT-A-FELON. Done.

Background checks don't work, and infringe on our RKBA. But let's assume there is 1-800-NOT-A-FELON; will you make the check mandatory? Must FFLs run the check?



Pay, or have the buyer pay, $25-40 to an FFL to run a 4473.

[KalashniKEV]

I'm of the understanding though, that there are some mental conditions or disorders that do cause or make the afflicted more prone to violent behavior.

Violent behavior, depression, anxiety, whatever- the standard for review should be medication.

If talking things out doesn't help, and your brain chemistry is off, the Doc needs to tell the Judge if you present a risk or not. Constitutionally, only a judge is capable of removing rights, and only then through due process.

It doesn't matter if you're the friendliest bi-polar SSRI popper in town... if your brain needs external regulation via pills, maybe there are better hobbies for you to pursue.

[7.62NATO]

Violent behavior, depression, anxiety, whatever- the standard for review should be medication.

If talking things out doesn't help, and your brain chemistry is off, the Doc needs to tell the Judge if you present a risk or not. Constitutionally, only a judge is capable of removing rights, and only then through due process.

It doesn't matter if you're the friendliest bi-polar SSRI popper in town... if your brain needs external regulation via pills, maybe there are better hobbies for you to pursue.


Mental illness is a strong risk factor for suicide, not for homicide. Preventing pill-poppers from buying guns will not even register on the radar. Those responsible for gun violence are by far troubled young men, who often they themselves were victims of violence, starting at a young age. Strong families, wherein the mother and father are present, and firm judeo-christian morals are taught, are the solution to end the gun violence.

[KalashniKEV]

Background checks don't work...

They absolutely do... thousands and thousands times per year.

I'm sure many of us here personally have seen a dude get denied. I have plenty of times, and I'm just a consumer.


But let's assume there is 1-800-NOT-A-FELON; will you make the check mandatory? Must FFLs run the check?

Pay, or have the buyer pay, $25-40 to an FFL to run a 4473.

Everyone runs the check via a smartphone app. It's free and it tells you:

1) "Firearms Prohibited" Yes or No
2) "No Fly List" Yes or No
3) "Sex Offender Registry" Yes or No

We already serve the Sex Offender Registry online for free anyway. Just give every citizen an entry.

99% of the checks will be done by employers anyway, and it will get the private background checking companies out of the business of giving applicants the thumbs up or thumbs down... which is a weird situation anyway.

It also solves the "Am I on the No Fly List?" and "Don't you have to tell me?" issue.

[7.62NATO]

There is another solution, of course, one which very few dare mention: Remove the guns in the manner Australia did in 1996. That will definitely reduce violence committed with guns, of which suicides would see 95% of the reduction. Are you turning in yours, KalashniKEV?

[7.62NATO]

They absolutely do... thousands and thousands times per year.

I'm sure many of us here personally have seen a dude get denied. I have plenty of times, and I'm just a consumer.



Everyone runs the check via a smartphone app. It's free and it tells you:

1) "Firearms Prohibited" Yes or No
2) "No Fly List" Yes or No
3) "Sex Offender Registry" Yes or No

We already serve the Sex Offender Registry online for free anyway. Just give every citizen an entry.

99% of the checks will be done by employers anyway, and it will get the private background checking companies out of the business of giving applicants the thumbs up or thumbs down... which is a weird situation anyway.

It also solves the "Am I on the No Fly List?" and "Don't you have to tell me?" issue.

Again, do you support the check being mandatory for all transfers?

[KalashniKEV]

Mental illness is a strong risk factor for suicide, not for homicide.

Ummmm... no... Mental Illness most definitely a risk for murdering people.

And anyway, even you don't agree with me on that, I'm sure you do agree that mentally ill people don't need to be around firearms. At all.

It's no biggie... they can just find a hobby that doesn't involve bullets flying through the air.


Strong families, wherein the mother and father are present, and firm judeo-christian morals are taught, are the solution to end the gun violence.

Tell Storm Roof.... or Harris and Kleibold... or McVeigh... or Breivik... or Holmes...

Hmmmm... Maybe you were only just thinking of Lanza?

[KalashniKEV]

Again, do you support the check being mandatory for all transfers?

Absolutely.

Obviously I don't want a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and people with clean records don't have anything to fear from a check that is 1) Truly instant 2) Accurate.

Will it inconvenience guys with active restraining orders or who have been adjudicated mentally defective... in addition to convicted felons?

Yes, but they're all prohibited persons anyway.

[7.62NATO]

Absolutely.

Obviously I don't want a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and people with clean records don't have anything to fear from a check that is 1) Truly instant 2) Accurate.

Will it inconvenience guys with active restraining orders or who have been adjudicated mentally defective... in addition to convicted felons?

Yes, but they're all prohibited persons anyway.

Your universal background checks require registration to be enforced, and they don't work.

[7.62NATO]

Ummmm... no... Mental Illness most definitely a risk for murdering people.

And anyway, even you don't agree with me on that, I'm sure you do agree that mentally ill people don't need to be around firearms. At all.

It's no biggie... they can just find a hobby that doesn't involve bullets flying through the air.

You're wrong. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than victimize. The mentally ill, too, have a RKBA. Without due process, they get to keep their guns.



Tell Storm Roof.... or Harris and Kleibold... or McVeigh... or Breivik... or Holmes...

Hmmmm... Maybe you were only just thinking of Lanza?

The drift from Judeo-Christian morals, and the disintegration of the nuclear family (read: married husband (male) and wife (female)), is responsible for the depravity of our youth.

[KalashniKEV]

Your universal background checks require registration to be enforced, and they don't work.

Let's be 100% honest here... No, they don't require registration, and Yes checking works, it's not checking that doesn't work.

In fact, checking people out before completing the sale doesn't even require serial numbers to work. The people already have SSNs, and they are the ones being checked. Also, the purpose of the check is not known.

Download the app and run your whole office, church, neighborhood, whatever. Most of that info is online in different places already anyway. I'm saying consolidate it, make it an authoritative source, and use it.


You're wrong. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than victimize. The mentally ill, too, have a RKBA. Without due process, they get to keep their guns.

I'm surprised you didn't generate a hypothetical... say a sweet old man with Alzheimer's that likes to bust clays on the weekend...

If he's medicated, put him in front of the judge and review the facts on record.


The drift from Judeo-Christian morals, and the disintegration of the nuclear family (read: married husband (male) and wife (female)), is responsible for the depravity of our youth.

We could get way side tracked here, but religion and homophobia have nothing to do with it.



To get things back on track, I'd say Donald has laid out an EXCELLENT plan that should make us all very happy to see implemented.

[7.62NATO]

Let's be 100% honest here... No, they don't require registration, and Yes checking works, it's not checking that doesn't work.

In fact, checking people out before completing the sale doesn't even require serial numbers to work. The people already have SSNs, and they are the ones being checked. Also, the purpose of the check is not known.

Download the app and run your whole office, church, neighborhood, whatever. Most of that info is online in different places already anyway. I'm saying consolidate it, make it an authoritative source, and use it.

How will the system be enforced (i.e., ensure people are being "responsible," checking the buyer)?






I'm surprised you didn't generate a hypothetical... say a sweet old man with Alzheimer's that likes to bust clays on the weekend...

If he's medicated, put him in front of the judge and review the facts on record.

You still haven't made any credible claims that pill-poppers pose a danger. If you had paid your due diligence you'd learn that the mentally ill are not the problem. Here is a short primer:

http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/actually-know-connections-mental-illness-mass-shootings-gun-violence-83103



We could get way side tracked here, but religion and homophobia have nothing to do with it.



To get things back on track, I'd say Donald has laid out an EXCELLENT plan that should make us all very happy to see implemented.


How's denying what our Creator intended for us working out?

[caporider]

The disorders in bold are not linked to violence. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence, rather than perpetrate said action.

Wut.

I was a lab assistant in the psych department my senior year of college. There was a reason we were instructed ALWAYS to sit closest to the door when testing folks with schizophrenia.

[BoringGuy45]

Violent behavior, depression, anxiety, whatever- the standard for review should be medication.

If talking things out doesn't help, and your brain chemistry is off, the Doc needs to tell the Judge if you present a risk or not. Constitutionally, only a judge is capable of removing rights, and only then through due process.

It doesn't matter if you're the friendliest bi-polar SSRI popper in town... if your brain needs external regulation via pills, maybe there are better hobbies for you to pursue.

And I say to you, if you think that because I take meds for my OCD that you can come and confiscate my guns on the grounds that might go psycho, by all means, come and get them. :mad:

[Endur]

Obviously I don't want a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and people with clean records don't have anything to fear from a check that is 1) Truly instant 2) Accurate.

Seriously?

How about record keeping and tracking of all our internet activities (whether they do or do not now, but if they do in the future); are you OK with that because you have NOTHING to fear?

HYPOTHETICAL: How about if the government goes even further and requires ID's or implants to track us and store sensitive information about us; or they start scooping people up because of things they might have said that is "anti-government" or what they have typed in a search engine; or any other "crazy conspiracy" that has happened to people by their governments throughout history? Nothing to fear then?

We should not allow rights to be infringed because we have "nothing to fear." That is down right f*cking ludicrous.

Plus, the overwhelming majority of people committing crimes with firearms and other types of weapons, ARE NOT obtaining them by legal means. So forcing more expanded "background checks" and other forms of knee jerk responses based on emotion and not logic & reason are not going to fix a damn thing.

[26 Inf]

Are any other candidates in the race as solid as he is?

KEV, I admire the fact that you seem to be an independent thinker and understand that it confuses and confounds those that wholeheartedly accept the dogma of their group.

But really, you are for sure bright enough to look at the TOTALITY of Trump for what he is, not what he is representing at the moment.

TRUMP IS NOT SOLID ON ANYTHING EXCEPT TRUMP.

You Trump apologists are starting to sound like Dash Hammett's perfect soldier: '“He was the perfect soldier: he went where you sent him, stayed where you put him, and had no idea of his own to keep him from doing exactly what you told him.”

[26 Inf]

[QUOTE=KalashniKEV;2180819]I know I would have liked to NICS the last guy I sold a pistol to...QUOTE]

Then why did you sell it to him?

[KalashniKEV]

How will the system be enforced (i.e., ensure people are being "responsible," checking the buyer)?

The same way drug laws are enforced, I suppose.

Yes, you could easily go outlaw and say, "No questions asked gun sales, meet me in a dark alley, expect to pay more..." but most people avoid such criminality.


If you had paid your due diligence you'd learn that the mentally ill are not the problem.

Agree to disagree. Mental Illness is, specifically the problem.


How's denying what our Creator intended for us working out?

No such thing exists, and if it did, no non-deity could logically claim ownership of their intent.


How about record keeping and tracking of all our internet activities (whether they do or do not now, but if they do in the future); are you OK with that because you have NOTHING to fear?

You seem a bit confused when it comes to rights and the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment grants us a right to privacy, and protects us from illegal search and seizure.

The 2nd Amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms.

You can lose your 2nd Amendment rights. The loss of these should be enforced.

Sorry if that's a bummer, but it's the law.

How well has "the honor system" worked when it comes to immigration?




Then why did you sell it to him?

Exactly.

I would say dude took it right up to the line. I'll always second guess. I wish I could have simply NICS'd him.

Oh well... until we can come up with something better...

[Endur]

You seem a bit confused when it comes to rights and the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment grants us a right to privacy, and protects us from illegal search and seizure.

The 2nd Amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms.

You can lose your 2nd Amendment rights. The loss of these should be enforced.

Sorry if that's a bummer, but it's the law.


The Bill of Rights do not grant us anything first and foremost. Those are unalienable birth rights. They are not granted by the government or by any person or being.

The Constitution, however one might feel about it, is just a line in the sand. It will not stop corruption or tyranny, that is the job of the people; vigilance. Allowing the smallest of fractions of infringements, whether one might have "nothing to fear" or not, will not safeguard or offer protection. Yes, one can lose anyone of those rights, but enforcing the loss of those rights should not come at the expense of those who have not.

[SteyrAUG]

The last President who DIDN'T support an Assault Weapon Ban was Reagan.

Bush 41 gave us an import ban on military semi autos.
Clinton gave us a 10 year domestic ban.
Bush 43 stated he would sign it if Congress passed it.
Obama tried everything he could to make it happen.

[AKDoug]

Obviously I also mis-read Will's first post.

As far as people changing their minds. My own mother was an avowed pro-choice feminist when I was growing up. Since having grand children she has changed her abortion views a full 180. She also has backed off on her feminist leanings. People do change. Hell, I thought communism was pretty cool when I was 17.

Do I trust a politician that changes there stance... not really. Do I trust Trump on this? Nope.

[KalashniKEV]

The Bill of Rights do not grant us anything first and foremost. Those are unalienable(sic) birth rights. They are not granted by the government or by any person or being.

I am familiar with that interpretation, and I chose my words specifically.

Those rights are inalienable... until they get taken away.

Sometimes it is unconstitutional, as with the surveillance state, and sometimes it is entirely constitutional, as with voting or owning guns.


Yes, one can lose anyone of those rights, but enforcing the loss of those rights should not come at the expense of those who have not.

Which is exactly why you expand the background checks- to enforce the loss of those rights of those who are prohibited persons and protect the rights of those who are not.

Look, I hate showing up at a new SCIF or lab to do some work and hearing "JPAS is down," but we don't operate our Top Secret and above facilities on "the honor system," we check people out.

Why?

Because not doing it would be ridiculous. RKBA is made stronger if we don't let it turn into the joke that immigration is. We need to enforce the laws we have 100% in a way that doesn't infringe on any rights (which I have described above).


The last President who DIDN'T support an Assault Weapon Ban was Reagan.


...actually, if you want to be semantic about it, Reagan's Gun Control Legislation not only dealt specifically with "Assault" Weapons but he was very much in favor of it, signed it, and made sure it would never go away.

In that way, the Reagan Ban was/is worse than the Clinton Ban.

He also turned California into what it is today.

[WillBrink]

Really? I think you just got caught perpetrating a fraud, bro.


I think you need to wok on your reading cop skills. Spelling it out a second time and you still don't "get" it. What ever.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Ummmm... no... Mental Illness most definitely a risk for murdering people.

I mean this in the nicest of ways, but that is flat out incorrect. Several mental illnesses have an increased risk of suicide but not homicide, including major depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

[Waylander]

Wow. "Paranoid, much?" is a better fitting title here.



The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent.

- "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)."



-"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)."







The public is misinformed about the link between mental illness and violence.

A longitudinal study of American’s attitudes on mental health between 1950 and 1996 found, “the proportion of Americans who describe mental illness in terms consistent with violent or dangerous behavior nearly doubled.” Also, the vast majority of Americans believe that persons with mental illnesses pose a threat for violence towards others and themselves (Pescosolido, et al., 1996, Pescosolido et al., 1999).






Inaccurate beliefs about mental illness and violence lead to widespread stigma and discrimination:






The link between mental illness and violence is promoted by the entertainment and news media.

"Characters in prime time television portrayed as having a mental illness are depicted as the most dangerous of all demographic groups: 60 percent were shown to be involved in crime or violence" (Mental Health American, 1999).

"Most news accounts portray people with mental illness as dangerous" (Wahl, 1995).



http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

[KalashniKEV]

I mean this in the nicest of ways, but that is flat out incorrect. Several mental illnesses have an increased risk of suicide but not homicide, including major depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

I'll bet if you make a T-shirt that says "Arm the Mentally Ill" and wear it around, all the hipsters will think you're a quirky cat.

Do you have a beard?


I think you need to wok on your reading cop skills.

Well, apparently there are at least two others who had no idea what you were trying to say in the OP, but this reading cop has issued you a citation.

Whether you intended to deliberately deceive or not, the link/ quote format implies that you are quoting from the link... not presenting the opposite of Trump's platform as he has outlined it.

[THCDDM4]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

Go tak a look. So everyone is clear on how often Trump changes he's stance. He may have had a true change in mind- but I'll call him out for the obvious- he tells people what they want to hear for personal gain.

Golden boy is a flip flopping pancake of a two faced coin.

Some may give him a pass for "living in a socialist state" and "just doing and saying what he needs for business deals, power and money". That gives him a big fat red stamp of "douchebag" in my mind...

[THCDDM4]

I'll bet if you make a T-shirt that says "Arm the Mentally Ill" and wear it around, all the hipsters will think you're a quirky cat.

Do you have a beard?


Well, apparently there are at least two others who had no idea what you were trying to say in the OP, but this reading cop has issued you a citation.

Whether you intended to deliberately deceive or not, the link/ quote format implies that you are quoting from the link... not presenting the opposite of Trump's platform as he has outlined it.

Brochacho-
Will was very clear in his original post- there was no deception of any sort. Go back and read it duder.

The fact is- Trump says whatever he believes people want to hear for HIS personal gain. It isn't that hard to see. Take a look at the dudes stance on the issues And his shady crony business deals over the years.

[7.62NATO]

The same way drug laws are enforced, I suppose.

Yes, you could easily go outlaw and say, "No questions asked gun sales, meet me in a dark alley, expect to pay more..." but most people avoid such criminality.

Most law-abiding people avoid criminality; criminals by definition do not. That's why background checks infringe (read, penalize)
on only the law-abiding citizens.



Agree to disagree. Mental Illness is, specifically the problem.

You're wrong - again. Mental health professionals and the literature all agree you're wrong, too.




No such thing exists, and if it did, no non-deity could logically claim ownership of their intent.



I am familiar with that interpretation, and I chose my words specifically.

Those rights are inalienable... until they get taken away.

Sometimes it is unconstitutional, as with the surveillance state, and sometimes it is entirely constitutional, as with voting or owning guns.

No Rights are granted by the U.S. Constitution. This nation is founded on the correct, self-evident belief that we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. By definition, unalienable Rights are fixed, permanent, and can never be removed. The government may suppress them or try to deny them, but they may never take away that which is permanent and always a part of us. Just because the government forbids you to own a cannon, doesn't mean that you don't have a permanent, God-given Right to own whatever arms you so choose.

The central issue is that the existence of a Creator is not only rejected, but people behave as if they are the Creator. When there is no God, children are murdered in the womb, men marry men, and man commits despicable acts against humanity. Of course, you already knew this.

[KalashniKEV]

Wow... so... a candidate publishes a platform that is 100% PERFECT on RKBA and you guys still find something to complain about?

Where was all this energy and dialogue when McCain, or that other old dullard ran?

I, for one, would shake Trump's hand right now for what he's gone on the record with.


Most law-abiding people avoid criminality; criminals by definition do not. That's why background checks infringe (read, penalize) on only the law-abiding citizens.

Well that's simple to prove as false- have I ever been NICS'd? Yes, over 100 times in fact.

Have my rights ever been infringed upon? No.

I've never been penalized either, which is not the same thing as infringed upon.


You're wrong - again. Mental health professionals and the literature all agree you're wrong, too.

There are very few Americans who would get on board with an "Arm the Mentally Ill" campaign.


...we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. By definition, unalienable Rights are fixed, permanent, and can never be removed. The government may suppress them or try to deny them...

Government can't take away your rights, but they can deny you from exercising your rights. OK, got it...


Just because the government forbids you to own a cannon, doesn't mean that you don't have a permanent, God-given Right to own whatever arms you so choose.

And rights that exist in a pure state of nature are unrestricted. We give some of them up as part of the social contract so that we can live in a Civilization. Otherwise we'd all live in Rapeville...


When there is no God, children are murdered in the womb, men marry men, and man commits despicable acts against humanity. Of course, you already knew this.

Agree with all of the above, except the concept that children live in wombs. Children only exist out of the womb. Fetuses, blastrula, gastrula, etc inhabit the womb.

[MountainRaven]

I don't give a shit what a candidate's platform is.

Obama ran on a, "I ain't gonna take no guns from nobody," platform and you see where that got us?

Trump sells Trump. That's all that Trump cares about.

I'm sure that if you believe Trump about Trump, you likely believe Bobby Bolivia the used car salesman that the vintage Camaro has "custom" faded paint and only 7,500 miles on it and that's why he's selling it for the low-low price of $45,000. He even had his own mechanic check it out to make sure that everything is fine and sure it's dirty and covered in road grime, but why wouldn't you trust Bobby Bolivia?

[26 Inf]

Children only exist out of the womb. Fetuses, blastrula, gastrula, etc inhabit the womb.

I'm going to go with that. It will help ease my dealings with my kids - while they are out of sight they don't exist, ergo, I don't have to worry about them. Kind of like when my senile old Lab begins wagging his tail when I walk into the room - I didn't exist until he saw me again. He seems happy, I'm going to roll that way also.

Now what are the rules? Completely out of the womb? Both feet inside? Are we talking womb itself, or including the birth canal?

I'm going with as long as I can't see them, but I may have accidentally doubled up on my pain meds.

[Endur]

I am familiar with that interpretation, and I chose my words specifically.

Those rights are inalienable... until they get taken away.

Sometimes it is unconstitutional, as with the surveillance state, and sometimes it is entirely constitutional, as with voting or owning guns.



Which is exactly why you expand the background checks- to enforce the loss of those rights of those who are prohibited persons and protect the rights of those who are not.

Look, I hate showing up at a new SCIF or lab to do some work and hearing "JPAS is down," but we don't operate our Top Secret and above facilities on "the honor system," we check people out.

Why?

Because not doing it would be ridiculous. RKBA is made stronger if we don't let it turn into the joke that immigration is. We need to enforce the laws we have 100% in a way that doesn't infringe on any rights (which I have described above).



...actually, if you want to be semantic about it, Reagan's Gun Control Legislation not only dealt specifically with "Assault" Weapons but he was very much in favor of it, signed it, and made sure it would never go away.

In that way, the Reagan Ban was/is worse than the Clinton Ban.

He also turned California into what it is today.

Comparing your place of employments access control is not the same as natural born rights.

If someone has lost their right to bear arms by felony or misdemeanor domestic violence, then they should be under a registration system similar to sex offenders or put that information on their state issued ID either by code or via getting scanned through the bar code. Infringing the whole to "protect" from a minority is not the proper way to go about it.

I will no longer discuss this with you as it seems you are blindfolded.

[7.62NATO]

Well that's simple to prove as false- have I ever been NICS'd? Yes, over 100 times in fact.

Have my rights ever been infringed upon? No.

I've never been penalized either, which is not the same thing as infringed upon.

Every time you submit to a NICS check, you're asking the government for permission to exercise an unalienable Right. Want to peacefully assemble, publish a book, worship the Creator, or be free of unreasonable searches? With your thought process, which is that of a statist or sheep, of whom I don't know which you are, you may exercise said Rights only with the government's permission. If there were no background checks, would you become a criminal? Most likely not. Do criminals submit to background checks? No. Background checks do not prevent criminals from acquiring arms. Even if they did, they're an infringement on our unalienable RKBA.





There are very few Americans who would get on board with an "Arm the Mentally Ill" campaign.

Sadly, more and more sheep agree with you. They think it's perfectly fine to deny people their unalienable Rights, without due process, for a false sense of security.



Government can't take away your rights, but they can deny you from exercising your rights. OK, got it...

Rights do not cease to exist because statists try to suppress them or deny others their right to exercise said rights.



And rights that exist in a pure state of nature are unrestricted. We give some of them up as part of the social contract so that we can live in a Civilization. Otherwise we'd all live in Rapeville...

It only becomes Rapeville if you deny people their unalienable RKBA.



Agree with all of the above, except the concept that children live in wombs. Children only exist out of the womb. Fetuses, blastrula, gastrula, etc inhabit the womb.

Do women say I am pregnant with a fetus, embryo, gastrula, etc? No, they say, "I am pregnant with a baby." It appears you have difficulty comprehending matters that are self-evident. This would be one of them.

[SteyrAUG]

...actually, if you want to be semantic about it, Reagan's Gun Control Legislation not only dealt specifically with "Assault" Weapons but he was very much in favor of it, signed it, and made sure it would never go away.

In that way, the Reagan Ban was/is worse than the Clinton Ban.

He also turned California into what it is today.

I've provided you with this a few times now. Can you please go re read it until you actually understand things.

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?138963-H-R-3155-Racketeer-Weapons-and-Violent-Crime-Control-Act

I just don't have the interest to have this absurd debate again.

[Endur]

Every time you submit to a NICS check, you're asking the government for permission to exercise an unalienable Right. Want to peacefully assemble, publish a book, worship the Creator, or be free of unreasonable searches? With your thought process, which is that of a statist or sheep, of whom I don't know which you are, you may exercise said Rights only with the government's permission. If there were no background checks, would you become a criminal? Most likely not. Do criminals submit to background checks? No. Background checks do not prevent criminals from acquiring arms. Even if they did, they're an infringement on our unalienable RKBA.






Sadly, more and more sheep agree with you. They think it's perfectly fine to deny people their unalienable Rights, without due process, for a false sense of security.




Rights do not cease to exist because statists try to suppress them or deny others their right to exercise said rights.




It only becomes Rapeville if you deny people their unalienable RKBA.




Do women say I am pregnant with a fetus, embryo, gastrula, etc? No, they say, "I am pregnant with a baby." It appears you have difficulty comprehending matters that are self-evident. This would be one of them.

Boom. End of discussion.

[Sensei]

There are very few Americans who would get on board with an "Arm the Mentally Ill" campaign.

And there are very few Americans who understand the differences between mental illness, personality disorders, and substance-induced disorders. One represents true mental illness that is treatable and rarely associated with violence. The other two are not actual forms of mental illness, respond poorly to treatments, and are associated with violence. However, that doesn't keep the clueless from lumping them all together to the detriment of the small group who have an actual mental illness but are the least likely to be violent. It also doesn't help that many doctors way over-diagnose mental illnesses, or inappropriately assign mental illness diagnosis to personality disorders and substance-induced disorders (usually to maximize their billing).

Fortunately, we have a Constitution that, when actually followed, protects the few against the majority who have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to various popular campaigns.

[KalashniKEV]

Obama ran on a, "I ain't gonna take no guns from nobody," platform and you see where that got us?

Where exactly did it get us?

We're more than a few spree killings into his two term administration, and no new Gun Control.

I suppose if he woke up tomorrow and said, "The supply of (SBRs or Silencers) is now hereby fixed and those already in the NFA registry will be transferable" then he'd be tied with Ronald Reagan as the worst opponent of the Second Amendment in the last 50 years.

(Reagan fans are clenching their fists, because they know it's true.)


I'm going to go with that. It will help ease my dealings with my kids - while they are out of sight they don't exist, ergo, I don't have to worry about them.

When you say kids, you're talking about actual children that are borne unto this world? Or rapidly dividing cells?

I have rapidly dividing cells in the bottom of my hamper.


If someone has lost their right to bear arms by felony or misdemeanor domestic violence, then they should be under a registration system similar to sex offenders or put that information on their state issued ID either by code or via getting scanned through the bar code. Infringing the whole to "protect" from a minority is not the proper way to go about it.

Hi five. You proposed an alternate solution.

I was merely thinking of a record that could be updated without a trip to the DMV, but put that info right on the DL and problem solved.

We're in 100% agreement, everyone gets checked and no rights are infringed upon.


Every time you submit to a NICS check, you're asking the government for permission to exercise an unalienable Right.

No, because it is most certainly "alienable."

We've already discussed how you can lose it.

Outside of private sales, I've always been NICS'd, always passed, and never had my rights infringed.


Even if they did, they're an infringement on our unalienable RKBA.

I'm just not seeing it.

If a NICS could be denied for no reason given, to a clean individual, and it was actually happening, then I would agree that infringement was taking place.

Can you provide an example of the above? I've never seen it.

I've sure seen a dirtbag leave in a hurry after a denial though...


Fortunately, we have a Constitution that, when actually followed, protects the few against the majority who have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to various popular campaigns.

Yes, and hopefully we can make NICS more accurate in the future and get all the databases talking to each other.

I'm just not down with the honor system... I suppose I'm just not a very trusting individual.

[SteyrAUG]

Where exactly did it get us?

We're more than a few spree killings into his two term administration, and no new Gun Control.


Not from lack of effort or intent. The push for a ban following the Sandy Hook shootings was one of the most significant attempts we've seen in decades. Obama even thought he could "executive order" some nonsense and thankfully he wasn't able to just do it and everyone pretend it was legal.

You have an amazing ability to overlook intent or pretend it doesn't exist. To have you tell it, Reagan was one of the most anti gun Presidents of the 20th century and Obama was never anti gun. Not sure if you actually believe this stuff or are just playing "technically / details" devil's advocate. But just because somebody tries to shoot you but misses and you don't get shot, doesn't mean they didn't try to kill you. And by the same token if somebody tries to shoot the person trying to shoot you, but misses and accidentally hit you, it doesn't mean they tried to shoot you, even if that is the actual end result.

You can state factually that the first person never shot you but the second person did, but intent has a hell of a lot to do with the actual facts of the situation.

[KalashniKEV]

But just because somebody tries to shoot you but misses and you don't get shot, doesn't mean they didn't try to kill you.

True, but at the end of the day, only results count.

If I'm walking to work and Obama flips me off on one corner, and Reagan says, "Hey, Buddy!" and shoots me in the leg on the other... well then who had any true effect?

Now imagine that I don't make a full recovery and now can't run and have to walk with a limp and a cane?

In two more years we won't even remember the details of "Obama contemplated this-or-that..." but we all wake up every day and deal with the Reagan Ban.

To walk it back to our previous thread, and we've been around and around on this... it's not really a good thing when unconstitutional legislation makes it all the way to the desk of the POTUS, but that's OK... YOU DON'T SIGN IT.

I know you believe that the NRA "forced" him to sign it, or that if he didn't sign it some other entity would have made him sign a more onerous ban. I say BS. Reagan wasn't bullied around by anybody- he signed it because it's what he wanted... just like when he brought Gun Control to California.

[SteyrAUG]

True, but at the end of the day, only results count.


I could NOT disagree with you more.

If somebody is trying to murder your wife and a police officer shows up and tries to shoot the bad guy but unintentionally hits and kills your wife, he doesn't become the new "bad guy." He remains the ONLY person who tried to save your wife from the actual "bad guy."

Reagan didn't sign it because he wanted a ban, just like he wasn't a gun control advocate in CA, he was a Black Panther and SLA control advocate. But you continue to ignore the bad guys and try and blame Reagan.

And I really, really can't have this same idiotic debate with you. Please continue to feel free to believe Reagan was the most anti gun President in history. When taken with most of your other views, I would be concerned if you actually had a favorable view of Reagan.

[7.62NATO]

I could NOT disagree with you more.

If somebody is trying to murder your wife and a police officer shows up and tries to shoot the bad guy but unintentionally hits and kills your wife, he doesn't become the new "bad guy." He remains the ONLY person who tried to save your wife from the actual "bad guy."

Reagan didn't sign it because he wanted a ban, just like he wasn't a gun control advocate in CA, he was a Black Panther and SLA control advocate. But you continue to ignore the bad guys and try and blame Reagan.

And I really, really can't have this same idiotic debate with you. Please continue to feel free to believe Reagan was the most anti gun President in history. When taken with most of your other views, I would be concerned if you actually had a favorable view of Reagan.

Do you think he's a plant, here to troll and confuse the members?

[26 Inf]

When you say kids, you're talking about actual children that are borne unto this world? Or rapidly dividing cells?

I have rapidly dividing cells in the bottom of my hamper.

Please explain a couple of things to me Mr. Scientific Method - at what exact point do those 'rapidly dividing cells' become a person? You have to be able to define it. And how would you scientifically describe the difference between the rapidly dividing cells of the (using my terms) unborn child and an adult with sufficient distinction to differentiate? And does that scientific method give you the precision to differentiate between the rapidly dividing cells of a five month old fetus still in the womb and the rapidly dividing cells of a five month old child, of the exact same biological age, born via C-section? Does that methodology allow us to with authority call one a person and one not?

Be careful where you tread because in just a short step or so you can find yourself postulating when the soul comes into being, and that is the start of the downhill slide for the pagan.

Or is yours actually a belief of convenience rather than science? Of irresponsibility versus responsibility?

[SteyrAUG]

Do you think he's a plant, here to troll and confuse the members?

Not really, I've seen a lot of people on the internet that basically believe the same shit.

[MorphCross]

Getting back to the original point of this thread I would be more inclined to trust a candidate's stance after seeing how they perform at a shooting range rather than them showing up at a meeting/speech/convention with their favorite set piece. They don't have to perform at Haley/Miculek/Hackathorn levels but if they show an encouraging level of firearm competency and accuracy it at least shows they have invested time into practical use of a firearm. Far too often we find many candidates wouldn't be able to put a magazines capacity into an 8x11 sheet of paper at 21 feet.

[HKGuns]

There are very good reasons for him being on my IL..........just saying.

[7.62NATO]

There are very good reasons for him being on my IL..........just saying.

You referring to Kalash? If so, I understand. He's off his rocker.

[HKGuns]

You referring to Kalash? If so, I understand. He's off his rocker.

Certainly not you or the FL Ninja.......[emoji3]

[Firefly]

Here's one for ya:

Who decides what 'mental illness' is?

Remember the Satanic Panic of the 80s? They had all these 'experts' coming out the woodwork talking about the rise of Satanism, human sacrifice, and Black Satanic Masses possessing people.

I remember being told I was going to hell for buying an Ozzy Record (yes Vinyl record. That, Quiet Riot and Purple Rain) .

Anyways looking back it was BS and Satanism turned out to be like Christianity just with fat goth chicks in muffin top corsets and whatnot.

Just like being queer. At one point in this country, enjoying anal sex from another man and liking it meant you were a deviant and up there with pedos. Now people wave rainbow flags.

The point is that not everyone is crazy and giving people to determine you to be crazy because of your otherwise legal hobbies is heinous and wrong. It smacks of NKVDs and Stasi.

If you are like really criminally insane you should have a trial and be locked up. If you are emo because of your white people problems tgen you nut up and deal with it ot take a valium and chill. Or try Zen or something.

People need to start accepting that some people are just mean jerks and that no amount of screening or whatnot will prevent anything.

Look at Aldrich Aames or Transvestite whatshisface Manning. Or thise FBI guys that got in with the mob.

So it's all a sham. More BS to make people feel smart.

No. Just deal with it.

[TacticalSledgehammer]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on his current stance. I've changed my mind on some issues in the past, as I'm sure most on here have. It only take one event to happen to change a person's opinion on a particular issue. Before I was a father I didn't really have an opinion on abortion. Now I do.

[THCDDM4]

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on his current stance. I've changed my mind on some issues in the past, as I'm sure most on here have. It only take one event to happen to change a person's opinion on a particular issue. Before I was a father I didn't really have an opinion on abortion. Now I do.

Changing your opinion on one or a few issues is one thing. Doing what Trump does and flip flopping on EVERY single issue but a few- that's a whole other story.

If you research his past stances- I posted earlier in this thread a good link to do so; you can clearly see he maintains his views and opinions solely to benefit him the most. He'd change his tune the second it becomes advantageous just as he has shown he has in the past.

I'd love to believe he's had a true change of heart and would do what he says- but underneath it all he seems like more of a used car salesman than anything else. As in: ill do whatever and say whatever I need to say to make this sale.

The way he uses his business dealings and making money as an excuse is worse to me- he is essentially admitting to changing his tune when It benefits him; scruples be damned. He's a talking head out for himself.

If he truly believed I. The things he's preaching he would ha e put his money where his mouth is long ago...

[7.62NATO]

Trump is a RINO, and cares only about Trump. He's not whom we want in the WH.

[SteyrAUG]

Trump is a RINO, and cares only about Trump. He's not whom we want in the WH.

True. But he is still better than some of the other RINO options. That's exactly how scary things are today. The fact that we are even considering Trump for anything like President shows how much trouble the GOP, and the country, is in.

[KalashniKEV]

Do you think he's a plant, here to troll and confuse the members?

I actually thought the same of you... what's your handle on StormFront, anyway?

7.62SOVIET?
;)


Please explain a couple of things to me Mr. Scientific Method - at what exact point do those 'rapidly dividing cells' become a person? You have to be able to define it.

A person is an entity that is borne unto this world. A rapidly dividing clump of cells is not a person.

Try applying for a social security number for a clumpy or asking him what he wants to eat for dinner?


Be careful where you tread because in just a short step or so you can find yourself postulating when the soul comes into being, and that is the start of the downhill slide for the pagan.

Soul? Like James Brown???

There's no such thing as ghosts.

(Santa isn't real either, nor the Easter Bunny. I'm not so sure about the Tooth Fairy.)


Getting back to the original point of this thread I would be more inclined to trust a candidate's stance after seeing how they perform at a shooting range rather than them showing up at a meeting/speech/convention with their favorite set piece.

That would be interesting.

I'm sure Trump would win.


Here's one for ya:

Who decides what 'mental illness' is?


Doctors diagnose mental illness.

Judges adjudicate if a person is mentally defective or otherwise unfit to be around firearms.

Pretty simple.

[26 Inf]

So KEV, with your views, why is it illegal for us to kill other humans, yet kill other mammals which have been born into this world?

And s'plain to me if you would how did we come to be? Please start with where the components that fueled the big bang came from, whether they be hydrogen or carbon, or an unknown unstable energy source, dependent on your belief. S'plain to me please where the minute particles that most all scientists believe formed the universe came from?

I am a simple man, and I would really like to know, scientifically, that is.

[7.62NATO]

So KEV, with your views, why is it illegal for us to kill other humans, yet kill other mammals which have been born into this world?

And s'plain to me if you would how did we come to be? Please start with where the components that fueled the big bang came from, whether they be hydrogen or carbon, or an unknown unstable energy source, dependent on your belief. S'plain to me please where the minute particles that most all scientists believe formed the universe came from?

I am a simple man, and I would really like to know, scientifically, that is.

Don't waste your time. He will not respond to logical arguments, and most likely is a plant. There's always the ignore list.

[KalashniKEV]

The thread is supposed to be about Donald Trump's stance on the 2A... or his old stance, I think... or definitely something 2A related... but ok....


So KEV, with your views, why is it illegal for us to kill other humans, yet kill other mammals which have been born into this world?

Because humans are a signatory to the social contract.

It is possible to "claim" not to be held to the standards of the social contract, and thus not subject to any laws. Doesn't work out for most...

Next question.


And s'plain to me if you would how did we come to be? Please start with where the components that fueled the big bang came from, whether they be hydrogen or carbon, or an unknown unstable energy source, dependent on your belief.

Big Bang happened, universe expanded, particles came together and formed stars, planets, etc... gases, compounds, single celled organisms... evolution, natural selection, etc...

You're going to tell me that only homo sapiens have emotions or personalities and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true."

You're going to tell me that the devil placed dinosaur skeletons under the dirt to challenge your faith and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true."

I'd say start a new thread, but it would be pretty pointless.

[titsonritz]

True. But he is still better than some of the other RINO options. That's exactly how scary things are today. The fact that we are even considering Trump for anything like President shows how much trouble the GOP, and the country, is in.

Bingo.

Trump is pro-2A because he is seeking the GOP nomination, if he was seeking the Democrat nomination he'd be anti-gun. He doesn't just blow with the wind he just plain blows.

[26 Inf]

Kev - read with comprehension and answer the questions - what caused the big bang? where did the elements of that big bang come from? The earth is, well, as old as the earth is. Certainly much older than 7500 years.

You're going to tell me that only homo sapiens have emotions or personalities and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true." - not going to say that because I don't believe it to be totally true of all mammals. However, many people confuse the inherited traits of lesser animals, such as mating for life, as evidence of soul or personality. Not true. Also there is no evidence that animals, beyond positive imprinting, are capable of discerning right or wrong.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Because humans are a signatory to the social contract.


ANd if you are born without hands, you're not a person?




Big Bang happened, universe expanded, particles came together and formed stars, planets, etc... gases, compounds, single celled organisms... evolution, natural selection, etc...


Sounds like the start to a great TV show, you should chase this down...

W was 'for' an AWB, Barry was 'against' gay marriage- anyone really think either position was true. I don't know what Trump really believes. Would he sell out us on the AWB? Probably. I think most politicians would under the 'right' circumstances. Trump is a wildcard that I'm unwilling to gamble on. To me, Fiorina has even better business expertise with out all the flakiness of Trump. I'm not anti-Trump, but I see other candidates that are far more coherent. Carson did the equivalent of the beauty pageant chick who had a brain fart during questioning. W-in-TF was rattling around in his head during that debate?

On Trump's Apprentice show (I never really watched), would he accept all the bluster and lack of answers from a contestant that he throws out as a Presidential candidate?

[KalashniKEV]

Kev - read with comprehension and answer the questions - what caused the big bang? where did the elements of that big bang come from? The earth is, well, as old as the earth is. Certainly much older than 7500 years.

It just happened.

You're going to tell me that the big bang was the will and intent of a deity. I could come back and say who created the deity?

It's not productive.


However, many people confuse the inherited traits of lesser animals, such as mating for life, as evidence of soul or personality. Not true. Also there is no evidence that animals, beyond positive imprinting, are capable of discerning right or wrong.

"Right" and "Wrong" are the result of imprinting social mores on the individual.

Human Sacrifice was stupid, but it was an actual thing... that happened... and nobody said it was "Wrong."

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Kev, you are falling into the relativistic morality trap that leftist use to justify whatever they want. There is an OBJECTIVE morality that often gets conflated with religion, but is true in and of itself. In the 2A discussion it gets back to the basic discussion earlier that we HAVE rights, we are not granted rights. They are based on objective, rational thought and are universal.

When the founders say things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident", that is the old-school way of saying objective rights.

Belloc can rock this stuff.

ETA:

Human Sacrifice was stupid, but it was an actual thing... that happened... and nobody said it was "Wrong."
-I'm pretty sure that at least one person wasn't in on the program.

[MountainRaven]

Kev - read with comprehension and answer the questions - what caused the big bang? where did the elements of that big bang come from? The earth is, well, as old as the earth is. Certainly much older than 7500 years.

You're going to tell me that only homo sapiens have emotions or personalities and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true." - not going to say that because I don't believe it to be totally true of all mammals. However, many people confuse the inherited traits of lesser animals, such as mating for life, as evidence of soul or personality. Not true. Also there is no evidence that animals, beyond positive imprinting, are capable of discerning right or wrong.

You need to hang out with (or simply observe long term) more animals, bro. They clearly have individual personalities.

Further, animals do have morality. But it is a harsh, unforgiving morality unhinged from the soft things that make humans civilized.

If you have a dog, it has morality: What is good for the pack is good. What is bad for the pack is bad.

[KalashniKEV]

Kev, you are falling into the relativistic morality trap that leftist use to justify whatever they want. There is an OBJECTIVE morality that often gets conflated with religion, but is true in and of itself.

The concept of objective morality only comes into play once everyone is well fed, housed/clothed, and just busted a nut.

Those people then use it to point the finger at those who are living closer to life and death on the spectrum, or closer to what's real.

This is easy to see in other examples- the softer, rounder, and pinker we get, the more "Morals" spring up.

I kill and butcher animals to eat ---> I enjoy meat but I'm squeamish to see it butchered ---> Hunting is wrong, but Farm animals are OK ---> Meat is murder.

Look to the days of our own Western Frontier, or read Blood Meridian.

You have food, I am hungry, BANG.

It's why animals band together in packs, or humans form society... not because negative things are objectively wrong and should-not-happen, but because if they didn't it would certainly happen.

[Eurodriver]

Damn.

Sensei was right.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The concept of objective morality only comes into play once everyone is well fed, housed/clothed, and just busted a nut.


Thanks for pointing out quickly that you either don't understand or don't want to understand what I'm saying.

Objective and universal mean applicable for all people at all times. Relative moralistic theory gets you in all kinds of trouble.

Though, looking at how fat people are, how we still haven't cleared the inventory of housing and the amount of internet porn watched- I think we've just about pegged the nut-house-full quotient as we have never come close to before in history.

[WillBrink]

I think this thread may need to get the M4C "How the hell did it end up going in that direction?!" OT Award 2015.

[26 Inf]

You need to hang out with (or simply observe long term) more animals, bro. They clearly have individual personalities.

Further, animals do have morality. But it is a harsh, unforgiving morality unhinged from the soft things that make humans civilized.

If you have a dog, it has morality: What is good for the pack is good. What is bad for the pack is bad.

Okay, what you are describing is instinct. Man is the only creature that differentiates between right and wrong. Man is the only creature which self-reflects. This isn't 'The Jungle Book' you are romanticizing unthinking, instinctive behavior.

[PatrioticDisorder]

.......

[SteyrAUG]

Please start with where the components that fueled the big bang came from, whether they be hydrogen or carbon, or an unknown unstable energy source, dependent on your belief. S'plain to me please where the minute particles that most all scientists believe formed the universe came from?

I am a simple man, and I would really like to know, scientifically, that is.

I realize this was not directed at me but there were NO elements of any kind prior to the big bang. There were no particles. There was no space.

Space did NOT exist.

Most people completely misunderstand the big bang. They think it was an explosion of "something" that distributed matter out into space which formed the objects in space eventually.

There was NOTHING, no space and as a result no time.

Now E=mc2 works both ways. You can convert energy into matter or matter into energy.

Given the discovery that the universe is expanding we have concluded that it had an origin and a starting point. This strongly suggests a singularity of pure energy that converted to create space itself. Matter came later. We previously believed we had a steady state infinite universe that had existed since, well...forever. Spectral Doppler proved that assumption wrong.

So we have questions when it comes to the singularity. Where did it come from? And currently we don't know, we weren't there and even if we had a time machine we couldn't go there because space didn't exist.

So did something make it? Did it self manifest from nothing? Is it eternal and has always been there? Pick your favorite because we don't know.

Now a lot of people suggest it must have a catalyst in the form of a creator who caused the "big bang" to occur. But all that really does is relocate the questions from the occurrence to the creator. So if there is a creator, where did the creator come from? Did the creator self manifest from nothing. Is the creator eternal and has always been there?

Well if something created the creator that is the new point of origin for all of the same questions. If a creator self manifested from nothing, then is that not possible for the singularity? If the creator is eternal and has always been there, then why is that not possible for the singularity?

The introduction of a creator doesn't actually answer any of these questions, it simply introduces another element of the question that requires an explanation. But since NOTHING existed at the singularity, your answer is as supportable as anyone else's.

We only know what happened AFTER the Big Bang.

[SteyrAUG]

Okay, what you are describing is instinct. Man is the only creature that differentiates between right and wrong. Man is the only creature which self-reflects. This isn't 'The Jungle Book' you are romanticizing unthinking, instinctive behavior.

Have you ever seen a dolphin commit suicide to avoid capture in a net? That isn't instinct.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Have you ever seen a dolphin commit suicide to avoid capture in a net? That isn't instinct.

Only North Korean dolphins.

[26 Inf]

Have you ever seen a dolphin commit suicide to avoid capture in a net? That isn't instinct.

No. Have you? I assume that you, like I, have read anecdotal accounts of such behavior.

Have you ever seen my response to this earlier statement: You're going to tell me that only homo sapiens have emotions or personalities and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true." My response: not going to say that because I don't believe it to be totally true of all mammals.

Dolphins are among the creatures I would not willingly let someone kill. Their cognitive capabilities are well known.

[26 Inf]

I realize this was not directed at me but there were NO elements of any kind prior to the big bang. There were no particles. There was no space.

Space did NOT exist.

Most people completely misunderstand the big bang. They think it was an explosion of "something" that distributed matter out into space which formed the objects in space eventually.

There was NOTHING, no space and as a result no time.

Now E=mc2 works both ways. You can convert energy into matter or matter into energy.

Given the discovery that the universe is expanding we have concluded that it had an origin and a starting point. This strongly suggests a singularity of pure energy that converted to create space itself. Matter came later. We previously believed we had a steady state infinite universe that had existed since, well...forever. Spectral Doppler proved that assumption wrong.

So we have questions when it comes to the singularity. Where did it come from? And currently we don't know, we weren't there and even if we had a time machine we couldn't go there because space didn't exist.

So did something make it? Did it self manifest from nothing? Is it eternal and has always been there? Pick your favorite because we don't know.

Now a lot of people suggest it must have a catalyst in the form of a creator who caused the "big bang" to occur. But all that really does is relocate the questions from the occurrence to the creator. So if there is a creator, where did the creator come from? Did the creator self manifest from nothing. Is the creator eternal and has always been there?

Well if something created the creator that is the new point of origin for all of the same questions. If a creator self manifested from nothing, then is that not possible for the singularity? If the creator is eternal and has always been there, then why is that not possible for the singularity?

The introduction of a creator doesn't actually answer any of these questions, it simply introduces another element of the question that requires an explanation. But since NOTHING existed at the singularity, your answer is as supportable as anyone else's.

We only know what happened AFTER the Big Bang.

Thank you. Nice to know the theories haven't changed much in the last 30 years.

[7.62NATO]

"Right" and "Wrong" are the result of imprinting social mores on the individual.

Human Sacrifice was stupid, but it was an actual thing... that happened... and nobody said it was "Wrong."

Wrong, again, KEV. This is getting old.

All men, including you, KEV (especially when you take your meds), have a conscience, as if it was inscribed in our hearts. The vast majority of people easily are able to differentiate between good and evil, as a result of our innate knowledge of universal truths. This is why our man-made laws must always be grounded on natural law, a set of universal truths that are discernible by human reason to all people in every time, including the time during which humans were sacrificed. There yet is hope for you, KEV.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What NATO said Trumps everything. See how I got us back on topic ;)

[SteyrAUG]

No. Have you? I assume that you, like I, have read anecdotal accounts of such behavior.

Have you ever seen my response to this earlier statement: You're going to tell me that only homo sapiens have emotions or personalities and I'm going to say, "No, that's not true." My response: not going to say that because I don't believe it to be totally true of all mammals.

Dolphins are among the creatures I would not willingly let someone kill. Their cognitive capabilities are well known.

Yes I've seen a few examples on video. And with certain mammals especially, we are being forced to reconsider what we mean by "sentient" and "self aware."

I did miss your earlier statement.

[SteyrAUG]

Thank you. Nice to know the theories haven't changed much in the last 30 years.

If I provided you with information you were already aware of I apologize for the "lesson." Your reply to Kev seemed to indicate a basic misunderstanding of the entire premise. Of course that could be for several reasons.

That said, we have moved way beyond scientific theory for a lot of things associated with the Big Bang thanks to COBE (here again I am assuming you might not be aware of this). Of course "what started it / where did it come from" remain completely unanswered and will probably remain unanswered forever so a complete and definitive "origin of the universe" model is probably impossible.

[MountainRaven]

Yes I've seen a few examples on video. And with certain mammals especially, we are being forced to reconsider what we mean by "sentient" and "self aware."

I did miss your earlier statement.

Not just mammals, but also certain birds, like ravens, crows, and (blech) magpies.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

If I provided you with information you were already aware of I apologize for the "lesson." Your reply to Kev seemed to indicate a basic misunderstanding of the entire premise. Of course that could be for several reasons.

That said, we have moved way beyond scientific theory for a lot of things associated with the Big Bang thanks to COBE (here again I am assuming you might not be aware of this). Of course "what started it / where did it come from" remain completely unanswered and will probably remain unanswered forever so a complete and definitive "origin of the universe" model is probably impossible.

We eventually are going to look around enough that we collapse the wave function-- and we 'BLINK' out of existence.

[KalashniKEV]

Wrong, again, KEV. This is getting old.

All men, including you, KEV (especially when you take your meds), have a conscience, as if it was inscribed in our hearts.

What you call a conscience, and assume to be "inscribed in our hearts" is actually just learned social behavior.

It's simple to prove:

1) Some cultures believe that homosexuality is "Wrong" or "Immoral" because that is what they are trained to think. Others simply recognize that there is no moral issue with respect to homosexuality.

2) There are cultures where stealing isn't wrong. Among Roma, if they steal your stuff it's your fault for not properly securing it.

3) It's possible to train children to believe that killing is not inherently wrong. See- The Islamic State.

For you, it might be "natural law" that keeps you from murdering someone... for me, it might be the written law/ law enforcement... for a sicario across the border, law enforcement might "make killing difficult," for a Jihadi there might be simply nothing wrong with killing.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What you call a conscience, and assume to be "inscribed in our hearts" is actually just learned social behavior.

It's simple to prove:

1) Some cultures believe that homosexuality is "Wrong" or "Immoral" because that is what they are trained to think. Others simply recognize that there is no moral issue with respect to homosexuality.

2) There are cultures where stealing isn't wrong. Among Roma, if they steal your stuff it's your fault for not properly securing it.

3) It's possible to train children to believe that killing is not inherently wrong. See- The Islamic State.

For you, it might be "natural law" that keeps you from murdering someone... for me, it might be the written law/ law enforcement... for a sicario across the border, law enforcement might "make killing difficult," for a Jihadi there might be simply nothing wrong with killing.

Three great examples of of dysfunctional societies- how not to run a civilization. You can gwuffa about number one, but the other two are great examples of why there has to be objective laws and not subjective laws.

The very fact that an ISIS kid has to be trained to kill show how that is an aberration.

You are confusing what can happen with what should happen. There are a lot of shit holes in the world where this stuff happens- and nothing good has come out of them- that should be a clue that they are unnatural and aberrations.

This is exactly why we don't live in a democracy, but rather a republic. People can and do horrible things to each other. It is only with an objective framework to laws and society that we can separate ourselves from the animals.

You would have had a lot of fun in the French Revolution.

[WillBrink]

Three great examples of of dysfunctional societies- how not to run a civilization. You can gwuffa about number one, but the other two are great examples of why there has to be objective laws and not subjective laws.

The very fact that an ISIS kid has to be trained to kill show how that is an aberration.

You are confusing what can happen with what should happen. There are a lot of shit holes in the world where this stuff happens- and nothing good has come out of them- that should be a clue that they are unnatural and aberrations.

This is exactly why we don't live in a democracy, but rather a republic. People can and do horrible things to each other. It is only with an objective framework to laws and society that we can separate ourselves from the animals.

You would have had a lot of fun in the French Revolution.

I was just about to make that point also. What "should" happen under X circumstances and what does happen, often two very different things. I believe there are Basic Human Rights that transcend time, culture, and religion(s) and are based on the most basic of concepts, concepts not difficult to understand. The reality is that those basic concepts are more often than not ignored, be it by governments or individuals, and about the closest we get is that document our Founders put forth. It's not perfect, but it's the most important document to human liberty and freedom that exists to date.

I will only say that until one has BTDT and made very difficult decisions under the worst circumstances, it's easy to be convinced you'd make the right choices. There, but for the Grace of God go I, and all that.

[Doc Safari]

Like Romney, who would change his positions as the political winds dictated? Maybe Trump has had time to think about, did a little research and genuinely changed his views on the issue. Or, he's a pandering opportunist like the rest of them.

This is my position in a nutshell. People DO change their minds. People also say anything to get elected. I'm holding out for Trump to reveal the truth about himself as this campaign season progresses.

[Endur]

The universal categorical imperative, anyone..