Trumps wins NRA endorsement, blasts Clinton on gun stance at forum

[Flatspriest]

What's so fucking special about your 2nd amendment anyway? Will the entire counry dissolve if it's gone?

The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure that the citizenry has a way to protect itself against the government if necessary and for personal protection against criminals as well.

[Ghostpanther]

The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure that the citizenry has a way to protect itself against the government if necessary and for personal protection against criminals as well.

The bold part has been upheld to be true by SCOTUS. The other consideration, a militia, it is debatable if it was for assembly against a tyrannical government or a invasion and also in the late 1700's, Native Americans were not unheard of to make raids on settlements. So each concept mentioned could be seen as a interpretation. But we know for sure what the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject. A right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

This is one of the reasons I will be voting for Trump. His stance on the 2nd Amendment. The endorsement of him from the NRA is to be expected.

[BrerBear]

Missing from this summary: Trump will abolish gun-free zones.

“We’re getting rid of gun-free zones,” Trump said again Friday.

Clinton took aim at Trump’s toughening position on guns in a tweet last week, pointing to his January declaration in Vermont that he “will get rid of gun free zones” on school campuses and military bases, promising immediate action.

"My first day, it gets signed, OK?” he said. “My first day. There's no more gun-free zones."

Quite a reversal from Trump's previous positions where he supported gun control measures.
But Trump can change his mind every day and his supporters will lap it up, facts be damned.

[Kellhound]

Missing from this summary: Trump will abolish gun-free zones.



Quite a reversal from Trump's previous positions where he supported gun control measures.
But Trump can change his mind every day and his supporters will lap it up, facts be damned.

Trump flip flopped, Clinton has remained anti-gun. No brainer choice if you are pro-gun.

[s_bushido]

What? The NRA endorsed the GOP candidate? Shocking!

My thoughts exactly.

[Alydael]

I wrote this in Trump Megathread (I guess that thread is dead). In first 5 minutes Trump talked about; 1) His sons being long time members of NRA. He then goes on a riff about his sons own so many guns, it scares him sometimes. Classic. 2) He said Hillary is going to abolish the 2nd Amendment. I mean said; "fuck it" I might as well lie big.

It's really no different than the dems constantly claiming the pubs are going to repeal Roe v wade, just because they don't support abortion for religious reasons. Or Shrillary claiming that the pubs are executing some shadow war on woman and she is the champion of these women (well, except for Bill's women of course).

I don't support the pubs or dems (I believe them all to be liars and cheats on the take from lobbyists). I don't own a gun and nvere plan to, but I wouldn't repeal the second amendment. I would never have an abortion (I would carry it and give it up for adoption at the end), but I have no desire to repeal Roe v Wade (you want an abortion, that is all you).

Both parties are totally ridiculous in the things they say. It just shows you what craziness people would actually believe when they support one of these parties- it is some strange form of brain washing or something.

[Gorgodeus]

The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure that the citizenry has a way to protect itself against the government if necessary and for personal protection against criminals as well.

It had nothing to do with either. It was to ensure the US had an armed militia. Try actually reading it sometime.

[Chain Chungus]

So, the crazy clown Ted Nugent endorses the crazy clown Donald Trump? Not surprising at all.

[tangers58]

The NRA endorsed a Republican? My god this is a shocking turn of events!

[Wells]

Trump flip flopped, Clinton has remained anti-gun. No brainer choice if you are pro-gun.

I'd buy it was a tactical decision if it wasn't how they always behave. It doesn't seem to matter to his supporters one wit that his policies have no consistency from day to day, its all a cult of personality.

[Fincayra]

What's so fucking special about your 2nd amendment anyway? Will the entire counry dissolve if it's gone?

The core intent of the 2nd amendment was that the public could arm itself for revolution against a hostile government. The framers of the constitution knew all the way back then that they had to put stuff like that in place. They had just come out of a war against England, which the core argument of that war was taxation without representation. They knew the people in the government would eventually have to be replaced, they just didn't know when. When the government is trying to take away that right, you better damned well be scared.

[Deleted]

Trump is impossible. Why do some ppl in US still think this vote matters?

[Wells]

The core intent of the 2nd amendment was that the public could arm itself for revolution against a hostile government. The framers of the constitution knew all the way back then that they had to put stuff like that in place. They had just come out of a war against England, which the core argument of that war was taxation without representation. They knew the people in the government would eventually have to be replaced, they just didn't know when. When the government is trying to take away that right, you better damned well be scared.

So you have to have a law to protect your ability to plan to break the law later?

[Fincayra]

It had nothing to do with either. It was to ensure the US had an armed militia. Try actually reading it sometime.

ahem, no. The US wouldn't need an armed militia with the military. It specifically says that states can keep a militia, yes, but that's not for use other than protection from outside forces.

"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."

Yeah, it's a run on sentence.

(Militia(right)=(people have guns(right))

People have interpreted this many different ways, but it basically means that people have the ability to form their own armed forces, for the protection of their freedom. That protection is from outside armed forces if it comes to it, but it's mainly a defense against a hostile government.

[Gorgodeus]

ahem, no. The US wouldn't need an armed militia with the military. It specifically says that states can keep a militia, yes, but that's not for use other than protection from outside forces.

"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."

Yeah, it's a run on sentence.

(Militia(right)=(people have guns(right))

People have interpreted this many different ways, but it basically means that people have the ability to form their own armed forces, for the protection of their freedom. That protection is from outside armed forces if it comes to it, but it's mainly a defense against a hostile government.

First off, the US had no military when the 2nd amendment came about. It used state militias to fight the British. There is only one way to interpret it if you actually care what the framers intended. It was intended solely to fight enemy troops. The SC saying it means for self defense and such is nothing more than a political decision.

Edit: It also only speak of the why citizens can be armed, which is to ensure an adequate militia, and is not a run on sentence. Militias were voluntary in most cases, so they wanted citizens armed in case they were called to serve.

[Milchshake]

Has Trump lifted the no firearms policy of his hotels yet?

I mean he has the power to end some gun free zones right now. Whats holding him back?

[stabetha]

It had nothing to do with either. It was to ensure the US had an armed militia. Try actually reading it sometime.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people.... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.... " --George Mason

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " --Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. " --Samuel Adams

maybe try reading yourself.

[Fincayra]

So you have to have a law to protect your ability to plan to break the law later?

It's not a necessity to the constitution. The US already had a government in place before the constitution was framed. It was called the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was made by what you would call today a group of separatists, but not quite separating. The Articles were quick, and they went quick too. It was a temporary solution to having a government in place for our new country. The articles lasted only 13 years before being replaced by the constitution.

Many people don't know that the Constitution was only barely ratified. Many states were on the fence on it, even before the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. So yeah. when it came to the well being and safety of the people, the framers put ways in for the public to defend themselves. Defense from harm outside the US, and from within. Look at the rest of the Constitution. Every branch of government counters the other ones in many ways. There is counter against the government itself baked right into the Bill of Rights.

[Ghostpanther]

First off, the US had no military when the 2nd amendment came about. It used state militias to fight the British. There is only one way to interpret it if you actually care what the framers intended. It was intended solely to fight enemy troops. The SC saying it means for self defense and such is nothing more than a political decision.

Edit: It also only speak of the why citizens can be armed, which is to ensure an adequate militia, and is not a run on sentence. Militias were voluntary in most cases, so they wanted citizens armed in case they were called to serve.

But it is a decision which allows me to exercise that right. Unlike your opinion.

[Gorgodeus]

But it is a decision which allows me to exercise that right. Unlike your opinion.

it has nothing to do with opinion. What is more important is the fact that many people are incapable of understanding the intent of the Constitution, and simply listen to what source they deem fit, and that matches their viewpoint.

- - - Updated - - -

maybe try reading yourself.

None of which counters the fact that is was for a militias use. Try again.