Presidential Election 2A Forum Mandate

[keystone183]

While engaging with Stanc is usually a bad move; since text is picked apart for contrarian purposes - I will respond with: are you in favor of vending machines with no-questions asked rocket launchers, nerve gas, and machine guns?

I'm not. There's a balance.

So yes, I very much am in favor of "reasonable" legislation that regulations access to leathality amplification systems. My definition of "reasonable" is very different then the Democrats definition of "reasonable". Indeed, we've already exceeded much of what I define as "reasonable". I'm probably pretty close to your definition of "reasonable"; but maybe not; depending on how you answer the above.

This would seem to need its own thread...

[montana]

While engaging with Stanc is usually a bad move; since text is picked apart for contrarian purposes - I will respond with: are you in favor of vending machines with no-questions asked rocket launchers, nerve gas, and machine guns?

I'm not. There's a balance.

So yes, I very much am in favor of "reasonable" legislation that regulations access to leathality amplification systems. My definition of "reasonable" is very different then the Democrats definition of "reasonable". Indeed, we've already exceeded much of what I define as "reasonable". I'm probably pretty close to your definition of "reasonable"; but maybe not; depending on how you answer the above.

I know this was directed at Stan, but here is my 2 cents worth. No, I'm not in favour of vending machine rocket launchers, nerve gas, machine guns or even back pack nukes LOL. It would be quite a show during the 4th of July if that were a reality I don't want irresponsible people to have any firearm, let alone violent criminals. That said, I am also in favour of mandatory training for firearm ownership, which probably goes against many people's belief on this forum. This could be misused like any well intention law but it has worked with hunter safety.
I believe any person, "who is trained and has proven to be a responsible citizen" should be able to own any firearm made. NFA owners, "have historically" been the most well behaved firearm owners period. Responsibility should always come with consequences. The lefts assault on our 2ndA is not about saving lives, but about control and power. That is a different argument.

[montana]

You see nothing wrong with confiscating a person's guns without due process??? Wow. Are you a leftist?


My solutions to what problems?


Concur.


Yeah, he didn't answer my question, either.

Stan, you can call me a leftist if you like, role playing can be fun. Rather than getting into another, "you said, I said Vietnam" I'll bid you a good night.

[Bigs28]

Maybe i missed it somewhere in all the rants but other then bump stocks which i don't think is a violation of my 2nd amendment rights what has trump done against the 2a? Please educate me.

[grayfox]

I certainly can't think of anything else.
As far as the "red flag" comment above, where is the law that Congress passed and he signed? Nowhere, eh?
So that comment, if anything, is a worthless one -- nothing happened. He didn't even propose a law for Congress to work on, AFAIK. I'm not real worried about that, it's the state-level red flag laws that are happening, that can cause harm-and-no-good.

I am in the same camp, it looks like, as LzE, in that I see a realistic limit to what "arms" a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with, which is the essence of the 2A as I read it. War gear for sure, but unreasonable to show up with rocket launchers, tanks, capital equipment etc. Personally unconvinced on auto weapons being necessary for the prepared citizen-militiaman. Y'all can have your opinions on that I'm not here to argue it.

I don't say these things to start a long argument about it, merely I am pointing out that there is a logic to this position, a defendable one IMO, and one that appreciates and votes for and supports President Trump. I do not support any of the lefties nor the libs.... their purpose is not actually gun control, it is total citizen-control. "Gun control" is a distraction they exploit on purpose.

I'm fine with the 2A protecting the current design of arms and realize that in maybe 20 years firearms may be obsolete - replaced by laser weapons or something - and the 2A at that time should be construed to protect those war-fighting items that one would expect the militia-man to show up for that type of war - whether to protect the country from foreign invaders or to protect the country from domestic/internal enemies/power-takers.

I don't think 1870's citizens worried too much about needing 2A protection for them to own a gattling gun... but some 6-shooters, a long rifle, powder and bullets, etc... those were the war-fighting weapons of the day.

So in that logic President Trump is completely fine, and Dems/libs/Socialists/ all their ilk, are NOT fine.
That's my position.

I'll stick with him until a better 2A champion shows up in real life. Never-trumper moaning and groaning -- pure Qvatch IMO!

[phishfood]

(In response to Bigs28 post) I think the better, more relevant question, is what has Trump done to advance your 2nd Amendment rights?

[phishfood]

To provide a partial answer to my own question.

He has nominated and had confirmed at least one (to my knowledge) solidly pro 2A Supreme Court Justice, and another probable.

He hasn't proposed, pushed through, and signed any blatantly anti 2A legislation.

[Bigs28]

(In response to Bigs28 post) I think the better, more relevant question, is what has Trump done to advance your 2nd Amendment rights?

None of my 2a rights have been taken away. I can buy any firearm today that i could have bought the day before trump was elected (a bump stock is not a firearm). I don't understand your question on what he can do to "advance" it. 2nd amendment is clear and i have those rights.

[phishfood]

I thought my question was pretty simple. But I will try to make it more so.

What firearm, or firearm accessory, is it easier to buy today than it was before? And what action has been taken by President Trump to make it so?

[grayfox]

phish,
A simple maintaining of the 2A is fine, "shall not be infringed" is the language. advancing it is not needed. If someone feels part of their 2A has been taken away then restoration would be in order. I don't personally believe we're in the situation of having part of the right taken away. yet.

[grayfox]

I guess we could say he has at least prevented any further infringements, thus allowing economics and the marketplace to develop and sell good firearms at decent prices. Possibly more decent and better quality than before, in 2015.
Most of the time a politician can do "good" simply by not doing anything bad to ruin good free markets. IMO that is.

[keystone183]

You guys really don't understand the words 'shall not be infringed', huh?

Good luck to you!

[LRRPF52]

I thought my question was pretty simple. But I will try to make it more so.

What firearm, or firearm accessory, is it easier to buy today than it was before? And what action has been taken by President Trump to make it so?

It's easier to Form 1 SBRs and Suppressors after they told ATF to fix their process.

I'd like to see that whole 1934 NFA process incrementally challenged and beat under sensible gun reforms.

1934 NFA is prejudiced and harmful to common people, women, people with short stature and reach, people with disabilities, the elderly, and those who identify as Warthogs.

It's just not fair.

[JASmith]

I thought LR1955 had a good idea — bring forth alternatives to Trump who might do better at protecting the 2A

We are now almost 60 posts onto the “discussion” and I am truly disappointed that the bashing continues but not one alternative to Trump has been mentioned.

Well, maybe not so surprised —

[stanc]

I very much am in favor of "reasonable" legislation that regulations access to leathality amplification systems.

I am also in favour of mandatory training for firearm ownership, which probably goes against many people's belief on this forum.

I find it fascinating that folks who believe keeping and bearing arms is an unalienable right given by God to all people -- to be used to defend themselves against the government, if necessary -- would advocate that the government control who can keep and bear arms, as well as what type of arms can be owned and carried.

The Second Amendment very clearly states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say, "the people who may keep and bear Arms, shall be determined and controlled by the government."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I am in the same camp, it looks like, as LzE, in that I see a realistic limit to what "arms" a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with, which is the essence of the 2A as I read it.

The State militia system that was established by the Founders -- in which militia members were required to furnish their own arms and equipment -- was indeed the "essence of the 2A" as written.

The problem with your statement is that the State millitia system was long ago superseded by the National Guard, so today's militia members are expected to show up with NO personal weapons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You guys really don't understand the words 'shall not be infringed', huh?

Apparently the phrase has a different meaning to them.