Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment?

[Grapesoda]

?The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,? the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn?t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as ?America?s first freedom,? pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.


In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation?s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump?s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us ?people of the gun,? of which Donald Trump is apparently one.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

[dyna mo]

I'm setting the over/under for 'Trump is stupid/idiot/ gun nutter' comebacks at 4.

[~Ray]

That sounds reasonable to me.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.


In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

Let it be so! The constitution shall remain as it is! ---Like it was going to remain as it is before Trump opened his retarded sewer hole on the subject. Obama is not coming for your guns you idiots.

Turn off Fox news and get your dick out of your sister.

Grapesoda...let's hope you get drunk one night and forget which end is the business end when you start shooting possums from your back porch.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Couldn't even get the words right

UPON what? his position paper

Talk about beating on a hot button for more attention.

[arock10]

what is his stance on me being able to get nukes and tanks. my rights are being infringed on

[Barry-xlovecam]

I want a full auto so I can kill the Mexican criminals that will try to scale the Wall of Trump

Nothing too big -- I don't want to be the guy that fucked up and blew a hole in the Wall of Trump ...

[DBS.US]

I just want to carry my M4 on the rack in my back window of my pick up truck as I drive down Hollywood Blvd. without being stopped.

[Rochard]

I hate to say this, but it sounds reasonable to me also.

We need to take the criminals off the street. Any crime committed with a firearm of any sort should have a stiff prison sentence - "stiff" being defined as "decades". If you are a convicted felon and you so much as pick up a firearm, right back to jail you should go.

We also need some kind of federal law about carrying a concealed weapons - It makes no sense for states to have different laws. Also, there should be some areas where civilians should not be allowed to carry weapons - airports for example.

Any firearm laws should be tied in with mental health laws. Anyone with mental health issues should not be allowed to access firearms.

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I hate to say this, but it sounds reasonable to me also.

We need to take the criminals off the street. Any crime committed with a firearm of any sort should have a stiff prison sentence - "stiff" being defined as "decades". If you are a convicted felon and you so much as pick up a firearm, right back to jail you should go.

We also need some kind of federal law about carrying a concealed weapons - It makes no sense for states to have different laws. Also, there should be some areas where civilians should not be allowed to carry weapons - airports for example.

Any firearm laws should be tied in with mental health laws. Anyone with mental health issues should not be allowed to access firearms.

Yes. Less people for having or selling pot. And a lot more in prison for using a gun in a crime. Harsh, long, mandatory sentences.

[$5 submissions]

Makes sense.

Gun control laws don't work because only LAW ABIDING people will follow gun control laws.

Criminals won't.

So having STIFF PENALTIES for violating gun laws make sense.

What is cause for concern is the NATIONALIZATION of gun laws. Government closer to home means more a more RESPONSIVE government. Besides, the US Supreme Court said the feds can't regulate guns as part of the Commerce Clause in the Lopez case.

Expect pushback on that particular portion of Trump's plan.

Otherwise, it looks solid.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I'm pissed, I cannot take even my stun gun to Paris next week. I need to be able to zap all those Muslim immigrant cannibals and zombies then tear their eyeballs out. Oh well -- 5" threaded black pipe -- I am going home to fix the gas line officer

Carry on 'Merica Fuck Yeah!

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Yes. Less people for having or selling pot. And a lot more in prison for using a gun in a crime. Harsh, long, mandatory sentences.

I am anti drug myself, but.... I cannot understand this country's obsession with pot.

It's very simple. We can spend billions on law enforcement and prisons, or we could make billions taxing it. Not any worse than drinking.

[2MuchMark]

[SBJ]

this is the first thing he said that makes any sense at all

No reason to take away guns just make the penalties stronger for those that use it to harm others. I do fear the crazy gun nuts that feel they need 200 guns but most of them if you don't fuck with them they won't fuck with you.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Anyone with mental health issues should not be allowed to access firearms.

sorry pal. thats not going to solve anything. not only does it infringe on the 90%+ of mentally ill who are harmless (except to themselves), there is no way to predict murder.

otherwise they woulda flagged the newtown killer, the colorado theatre shooter, both of whom saw mental health professionals & experts the did not know they had time bombs in front of them.

good luck even defining what is mentally ill for gun ownership purpose. a compulsive shopper can be construed as mentally ill, or merely obese people who cant control their impulses. maybe liberals control the decision & conservative thinking is mentally ill so no guns.

& PS, people with no mental illness when young, may become mental ill due to war, trauma, job loss, divorce, drug OD. so a person may already own guns & eventually turn into a murderer. Vester flanagan was a normal guy at 21, a murderer at 41.

forget it bro.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

sorry pal. thats not going to solve anything. not only does it infringe on the 90%+ of mentally ill who are harmless (except to themselves), there is no way to predict murder.

otherwise they woulda flagged the newtown killer, the colorado theatre shooter, both of whom saw mental health professionals & experts the did not know they had time bombs in front of them.

good luck even defining what is mentally ill for gun ownership purpose. a compulsive shopper can be construed as mentally ill, or merely obese people who cant control their impulses. maybe liberals control the decision & conservative thinking is mentally ill so no guns.

& PS, people with no mental illness when young, may become mental ill due to war, trauma, job loss, divorce, drug OD. so a person may already own guns & eventually turn into a murderer. Vester flanagan was a normal guy at 21, a murderer at 41.

forget it bro.

I completely disagree with you. In all of the cases you mentioned if there was a law that removed firearms from them, these shootings might have been prevented.

There are walking time bombs all around us and we don't do anything about it. My friend John is a great example. Divorced twice, disabled now for thirty years, hasn't gotten laid in twenty years, has no contact with his kids, and he is on so much medication it makes my head spin..... He's armed with an AR15. This man is depressed sixteen ways from next Tuesday, and yet there is no law preventing him from owning a firearm.

This is simple common sense. Take firearms out of the question: If a commercial pilot is on medication, depressed, and suicidal, should they be allowed to fly 200 people across country five times a week? Of course not.

That kid who killed dozens of school children... Imagine if there was a law that said "Your son is depressed, and as long as he lives in that house you are not allowed to own firearms". That shooting would have never had happened.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Makes sense.

Gun control laws don't work because only LAW ABIDING people will follow gun control laws.

Criminals won't.

So having STIFF PENALTIES for violating gun laws make sense.

What is cause for concern is the NATIONALIZATION of gun laws. Government closer to home means more a more RESPONSIVE government. Besides, the US Supreme Court said the feds can't regulate guns as part of the Commerce Clause in the Lopez case.

Expect pushback on that particular portion of Trump's plan.

Otherwise, it looks solid.

I swear the line "criminals never follow the law so gun control laws are pointless" is the biggest load of bullshit ever. It's like "people still die in car wrecks, seatbelt laws are pointless"

Pretty much all guns started off legal at one point and are pretty much as easy to buy as candy

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

sorry pal. thats not going to solve anything. not only does it infringe on the 90%+ of mentally ill who are harmless (except to themselves), there is no way to predict murder.

otherwise they woulda flagged the newtown killer, the colorado theatre shooter, both of whom saw mental health professionals & experts the did not know they had time bombs in front of them.

good luck even defining what is mentally ill for gun ownership purpose. a compulsive shopper can be construed as mentally ill, or merely obese people who cant control their impulses. maybe liberals control the decision & conservative thinking is mentally ill so no guns.

& PS, people with no mental illness when young, may become mental ill due to war, trauma, job loss, divorce, drug OD. so a person may already own guns & eventually turn into a murderer. Vester flanagan was a normal guy at 21, a murderer at 41.

forget it bro.

good post but wasted on people like rochard who think it's perfectly OK for the government to DEFINE mental health and make laws based on what some shrinks think is mentally healthy or not.

psychology isn't perfect science. fuck, after years and years of giving teens paxil, psychology finally admitted paxil is bad UNSAFE for teens. recent studies show 2 out of 3 psych research gets it wrong. but hey, let's let those guys dictate law.

dafuk.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by **********

Mark what is crazy about the gun platform Trump is proposing? actually the most reasonable stuff I've heard in some time....

[arock10]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

good post but wasted on people like rochard who think it's perfectly OK for the government to DEFINE mental health and make laws based on what some shrinks think is mentally healthy or not.

psychology isn't perfect science. fuck, after years and years of giving teens paxil, psychology finally admitted paxil is bad UNSAFE for teens. recent studies show 2 out of 3 psych research gets it wrong. but hey, let's let those guys dictate law.

dafuk.

Yes let's give them guns instead, which have been proven to be far safer

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by arock10

Yes let's give them guns instead, which have been proven to be far safer

no, it has not been proven safer. you may want to let your freedoms be decided by shrinks who statistically gets it wrong more than right. i do not. you also sidestep gun death statistics. the massive majority of gun deaths are not done by law abiding depressed people, or whatever psych label you want to label them. depressed. unhappy, sad. angry wtfever.

and you also miss the real point. i never stated we don't need better gun regulations. we do. i stated it's a very bad idea to legally define mental health and remove personal freedoms based on pop pseudo-science psychology. the ramifications of labeling people based on a government psych profile are staggering.

[Paul Markham]

what is his stance on me being able to get nukes and tanks. my rights are being infringed on

Once a Government makes an infringement like Nukes, Uzzis, or mounting this bad boy on the back of your pick up.



It has limited the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is amended. So limiting it to single shot guns, would be fine within the law and Second Amendment.

The obvious route is what do the people of the USA, or States want? A simple question on a ballot paper would put the whole thing to bed.

This is what the writers of the Second Amendment were thinking of.



This is reality.



Or in a few years.

[dyna mo]

paul markham has it entirely wrong.

[Helix]

There is one common denominator that everyone overlooks in these mass shootings. It is the pharmas, in particular the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The shooters were either coming off the drugs or using them. It's not the guns.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

paul markham has it entirely wrong.

Why?

Can the Government limit the arms?

Is there a law banning certain creeds, religions or colour or people from having arms?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Why?

Can the Government limit the arms?

Is there a law banning certain creeds, religions or colour or people from having arms?

your post was incorrect on all 3 counts-

that's not what the framers of the Constitution were thinking.

that's not reality in America

that's not America in a few years.

[Vendzilla]

Makes perfect sense. In Chicago where they have the highest rate of gun violence in the Nation I think, they also have the most laws. But it's the liberal judges that let criminals off easy when violating those laws. I'll bet Trump is right in that if those laws were rigid in enforcement, the violence would go down. Liberals, many of whom don't even own a gun want stricter laws, well then, lets enforce the ones we already have and see what happens!

[_Richard_]

so does trump support private prisons? or is he just a moron

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so does trump support private prisons? or is he just a moron

Trump is the pro-business candidate.
Private prisons are big business aren't they?
Good debate question

I don't think he is a moron -- The Donald has made billions ...
Has The Donald released his tax returns yet? :0D

That finished Mitt "Robme" last election ...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

your post was incorrect on all 3 counts-

that's not what the framers of the Constitution were thinking.

that's not reality in America

that's not America in a few years.

You have failed to explain why.

The Framers of the Constitution were thinking about their time. They had to because that was all they knew. Jefferson didn't include slaves, 20% of the US population who weren't created equal, in the Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution made it clear who should have the legal right to bears arms "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That clearly does not mean what's happening today. Which does open the possibility of what I stated in the future.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Has The Donald released his tax returns yet? :0D

That finished Mitt "Robme" last election ...

Donald Trump Just Released His Personal Finances?and, Oh Boy... | Mother Jones

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You have failed to explain why.

The Framers of the Constitution were thinking about their time. They had to because that was all they knew. Jefferson didn't include slaves, 20% of the US population who weren't created equal, in the Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution made it clear who should have the legal right to bears arms "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That clearly does not mean what's happening today. Which does open the possibility of what I stated in the future.

I didn't fail anything. I'm not here to explain our constitution to you and how your claiming reality in USA is state militias.