• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's Plan For the 2nd Amendment

EduCat

EduCat

Senior member
http://conservativetribune.com/trump-plan-2nd-amendment/ - Not sure if this was posted before or not.

Well, yee-haw!!!!

Yosemite.gif
 
imported_tajmahal said:
Why would anyone have a problem with his plan?
Click to expand...

Because he says this:

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-existed both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right and therefore cannot take it away.

I'm a liberal on most issues but I am certainly for the right to own firearms. My problem is that he is claiming that laws in this land existing before the Constitution was written supersede the Constitution. He is basically nullifying the Constitution. Yuge precedent.
 
Let me know when he legalizes private ownership of these:

mk19-automatic-grenade-launcher_8.jpg


Until then, I can't feel really free. I got neighbors that might learn to tone it down a bit.

Edit: Do they use the blue tips for UN peacekeeping missions?
 
Secondly, his plan to deal with gun violence is more incarceration instead of dealing with the social issues that drive teens to pick up guns in the first place:

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 fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

This is bullshit. One suburb in Virginia? LOL. Feds have had a 5 year mandatory sentence for felons carrying guns FOREVER. Again this is bullshit #alternativefacts
 
IronWing said:
Let me know when he legalizes private ownership of these:

mk19-automatic-grenade-launcher_8.jpg


Until then, I can't feel really free. I got neighbors that might learn to tone it down a bit.

Edit: Do they use the blue tips for UN peacekeeping missions?
Click to expand...


Milspec ammunition is color coded for purpose. That way you don't fire a high explosive round when you intended to fire a parachute flare for illumination, etc. If I'm downrange and asking for suppressive fire the last thing I want is incoming from the guy supposed to provide my cover. Here's some typical examples:

m79amo.gif
 
IronWing said:
Let me know when he legalizes private ownership of these:

mk19-automatic-grenade-launcher_8.jpg


Until then, I can't feel really free. I got neighbors that might learn to tone it down a bit.

Edit: Do they use the blue tips for UN peacekeeping missions?
Click to expand...

i got lots of trigger time on the MK-19 while in the Air Force. very very very fun to shoot. those solid aluminum blue practice rounds made purty sparks when they hit the old target tanks.
 
I don't view the 2nd amendment as the first defense against a tyrannical government.

The first amendment protections of speech, assembly, the press and how they interact with our right to vote is the first and primary defense against a tyrannical government.

The 2nd is our last defense. I wish more people would realize that.
 
That being said I do find the AA12 combat shotgun (300 RPM) coupled with a 32 round drum magazine and FRAG 12 HE-AP ammo (fin stabilized High Explosive Antipersonnel - 200m effective range) to be wonderfully over kill.

U.S.%20Marine%20Firing%20AA-12%20Full-Auto%20Shotgun%20(AA12%20Machine%20Shotgun).jpg

cbfdfa9a5b9cfecd6b1950c454b981cc.jpg
 
I don't see how any rational person has a problem with that plan.

Normal law abiding citizens wielding guns isn't a problem. Criminals are the problem. Focusing on limiting what law abiding citizens can do misses the point entirely.
 
mxnerd said:
More guns to intimidate killers? I think not.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...e-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg
Click to expand...


The US has a higher rate but the UK at the very least does not report incidents of violent crimes, they report convictions. Since there is no international standard the numbers you cite are meaningless.

Vermont has virtually no restrictions. Carry any federally approved firearm you like, no permit. The state capitol had a homicide the other day, the first in 100 years.

Take away the guns in Chicago if you can and the crime rates would go down, because it's the people, not the guns that shoot. I wouldn't think you are safe because sharp pointed things and tire iron like things can still be had and the people are the same.
 
PokerGuy said:
I don't see how any rational person has a problem with that plan.

Normal law abiding citizens wielding guns isn't a problem. Criminals are the problem. Focusing on limiting what law abiding citizens can do misses the point entirely.
Click to expand...

How do we know the difference between the two? What happens when a good guy becomes the bad guy?
 
PokerGuy said:
I don't see how any rational person has a problem with that plan.

Normal law abiding citizens wielding guns isn't a problem. Criminals are the problem. Focusing on limiting what law abiding citizens can do misses the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Please. The majority of gun deaths are suicides followed by domestic violence of some sort.

This plan solves nothing and makes no one safer.

Like I said, non-fact based policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top