Presidential Election 2A Forum Mandate

[grayfox]

Stan I think that ground has been covered several times. We will have to agree to disagree.

I'm sticking with Trump. He's the best there is right now for 2A and far better than many from the past, along with Reagan.

[stanc]

Stan I think that ground has been covered several times. We will have to agree to disagree.

I cannot imagine why you would disagree. What I said is verifiable fact, covered by Federal law.

I'm sticking with Trump.

No one has said you shouldn't.

He's the best there is right now for 2A and far better than many from the past, along with Reagan.

Sadly, that isn't much of a recommendation. Even Clinton and Obama were better for the 2A than Reagan.

[LR1955]

I cannot imagine why you would disagree. What I said is verifiable fact, covered by Federal law.


No one has said you shouldn't.


Sadly, that isn't much of a recommendation. Even Clinton and Obama were better for the 2A than Reagan.

Stan:

OK -- what Democrat Presidential candidate is more pro 2A and pro gun owner than Trump?

No one here cares about the politics of twenty or thirty years ago. We do care about the 25 meter target right in front of us.

So far you have only said Trump is bad but have not once said any of the Democrat Presidential candidates would be better.

And please note I am not asking who you will vote for in the election. We are comparing Trump to any of the Democrat candidates -- not asking which if any you support.

LR55

[grayfox]

I cannot imagine why you would disagree. What I said is verifiable fact, covered by Federal law.

As I said above, we will have to disagree. Federal law cannot invalidate a constitutional amendment's language. The people still have the right, regardless of what an individual state may have, or what federal law may say about National guard; the Constitution consistently differentiates between/among the federal government, the individual states, and the people. This has all been discussed before. This is my last statement on this as I do not intend to hijack the thread.

By the way, I Echo '55's question above:
"OK -- what Democrat Presidential candidate is more pro 2A and pro gun owner than Trump?"

I have expressed my vote for Trump but you have not expressed any alternative name. No names. No candidate.
What is your alternative named person or candidate? That is, I believe, the stated rules for this thread.

[Wheelhorse]

I'm sticking with Trump. He's the best there is right now for 2A and far better than many from the past, along with Reagan.[/QUOTE]

I personally believe Ted Cruz is more 2A friendly than Mr Trump.

[41bear]

LOL. The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, and other Federal laws have made "shall not be infringed" not worth the parchment it was written on.

On this you and I TOTALLY agree, the very moment FDR put pen to paper the 2nd died!

Oh, I'm for Trump again in 2020!

[Wheelhorse]

The GC Act of 68 mentions several times, "all lawful sporting purposes." The 2A wasn't about sporting purposes.

They always take and we always give.

Will it ever stop?

[LR1955]

I don't know if any of them are.


Yes. I only made the comment about Reagan because grayfox compared Trump to Reagan, and I was responding to statements in grayfox's post.

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


LOL. The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, and other Federal laws have made "shall not be infringed" not worth the parchment it was written on.


Sure, according to the 2A, the people still have a (considerably infringed) right to keep and bear arms, but that is a different subject.

The issue I addressed is your statement that you see "a realistic limit to what arms a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with."

Members of the militia are defined by Federal law, not the 2A. Since they are expected to show up with no weapons, your "realistic limit" would be set at ZERO. No weapons of any kind.


The "mandate" is: If you criticize Trump for something he said about the 2A, you will name one or more of the Democratic candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A.

I have not criticized Trump in this thread, therefore I am not required to name any Democrat who is more pro-2A than Trump.

Stan:

Of course you didn't criticize Trump in this thread. Only pointed out all the anti gun things he has said and done in the past.

I also expected you to dodge the question by saying something like you 'don't know' if any of the Democrat Presidential candidates are more pro-gun than Trump. Really? You expect us to believe you know so much about why we have no 2A rights yet know nothing about the platform of the Democrats?

Your leftist arrogance and obfuscation does not play well on a pro gun forum.

Disobeying my intent for this single thread was predicted.

I am banning you from the forum for one month, not three.

LR55

[PNWTargets]

I do not understand how someone who is 100 percent patriot of the second amendment can support the current left options for president. If anyone asks me what political party I am, I state I am American. I am for whoever protects our rights.

[JASmith]

Cherry-Picking from montana?

...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.

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

[grayfox]

Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

Not a bad idea.

[montana]

Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

We did firearm training in Boy Scouts with 22 rifles. Then we went through hunter safety, "as required" to obtain our hunting licenses. Requiring firearm training as a prerequisite for a high school diploma is an excellent idea.

[TNhuntsman]

Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

Not a bad idea.

Training is always a good idea and should be encouraged but it shouldn't be a requirement to exercise a right. I don't have to have training in journalism to exercise free speech or theology classes to follow a religion although I'm sure they would be of benefit.
Everyone should have the right to preserve their life through the best means available to them, typically one of the best ways of matching harmful/deadly force is with equal force, having a firearm for defense of self or another is an individual right. Most people will educate themselves of the proper use and safety of a firearm that they will be relying on for protection but I imagine some won't and that is their freedom of choice.
Freedom comes with risks but I'll accept that risk verses being dictated to me how and what I can use to keep my family and myself safe.

[PNWTargets]

Rights are trying to be restricted every day. No need to encourage it. How many people here think paying for a tax stamp for suppressors or ?SBR? is legit? I do not.

[montana]

Rights are trying to be restricted every day. No need to encourage it. How many people here think paying for a tax stamp for suppressors or ?SBR? is legit? I do not.

I understand the concern completely. If mandatory firearm instruction was a requirement for obtaining a high school diploma "only", then there would be no restriction on firearm ownership. JASmith may be on to something. With the anti gun propaganda flooding our schools and media, this could possibly be a more sensible way of educating the low informed public, not to mention the actual benefits in of itself. https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch...s-hank-berrien