Donald Trump Position Paper on the 2nd Amendment

[cereal_killer]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

 

[Disir]

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System



Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.



All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.



And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.



We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

BAM! Somebody said something. It's about time.

 

[DarkFury]

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System



Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.



All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.



And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.



We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

BAM! Somebody said something. It's about time.

Yeah I grabbed the last two sections and YES the place is busy.. Same link as OP

"NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.



MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves."

The RIGHT to carry SHOULD be a NATIONAL right because it IS a right given to ALL of us.

 

[Disir]

I've never heard of Project Exile. Just in case anyone else is trying to figure out what it was:
Police Chief Magazine - View Article

 

[OKTexas]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

[cereal_killer]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

 

[DarkFury]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

Okay question. IF we members take PARTS of that story just PARTS and the whole thing winds up here because of MORE then one member. Does THAT violate any rules?

 

[The Rabbi]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

His point is how it ought to be. I am against forcing states to adopt laws like that btw.
Trump's position here is at odds with positions he's taken in the past. I guess these poll-tested much better than his old positions.

 

[DarkFury]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

His point is how it ought to be. I am against forcing states to adopt laws like that btw.
Trump's position here is at odds with positions he's taken in the past. I guess these poll-tested much better than his old positions.

People change their mind on stuff. Can one NOT change their mind and still be honest? Of course.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

His point is how it ought to be. I am against forcing states to adopt laws like that btw.
Trump's position here is at odds with positions he's taken in the past. I guess these poll-tested much better than his old positions.

People change their mind on stuff. Can one NOT change their mind and still be honest? Of course.

Trump has "changed his mind" on virtually every single issue, all within the last 9-12 months.
So, no, that doesnt pass the smell test.

 

[DarkFury]

Good luck loading the page right now. May have to come back when its not getting pummeled.

UPDATE: its back online

As a CCL holder I like the idea of a National Right to Carry.

Second Amendment Rights

If you're licensed to carry in your State the Constitution requires other States to recognize it. But when did the Constitution stand in the way of most anything a State wants to do.

Article 4, Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Not true. My license does not permit me to conceal carry anywhere in the US. Some states have laws that will allow it however (Licensed in another state to carry in their state)

His point is how it ought to be. I am against forcing states to adopt laws like that btw.
Trump's position here is at odds with positions he's taken in the past. I guess these poll-tested much better than his old positions.

People change their mind on stuff. Can one NOT change their mind and still be honest? Of course.

Trump has "changed his mind" on virtually every single issue, all within the last 9-12 months.
So, no, that doesnt pass the smell test.

Reagan changed his mind as well. Did anybody check the time on that? Is there a REQUIRED amount of time? If you were an atheist last month and a Christian this month is there a waiting period when you are NOT either?

See that is where your reasoning fails. You set a time frame, but in fact none exists right?

 

[Iceweasel]

He's got his finger in the air. The president can't implement those things but he can use the bully pulpit and maybe some deal making leverage. I'd love to cross state lines with my weapons but there would be massive opposition to it. Oregon isn't bad, but California? ain't gonna happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DISIR SAID:

"And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it."

Wrong.

No one is 'blaming' gun owners for acts of violence with firearms; and much of what is being proposed conforms with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – we may not like or agree with that jurisprudence, but gun control measures enacted pursuant to that case law is nonetheless Constitutional.

Consequently, there are no 'opponents' of gun rights if what they propose is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, nor are they seeking to 'exploit' anything or 'push' any 'agenda.'

We do need real solutions to address real problems, but attempting to propagate the ridiculous lies quoted above are in no way a 'solution,' as they are not real problems, where such inane rhetoric will serve only to hinder finding and implementing real solutions.

 

[DarkFury]

He's got his finger in the air. The president can't implement those things but he can use the bully pulpit and maybe some deal making leverage. I'd love to cross state lines with my weapons but there would be massive opposition to it. Oregon isn't bad, but California? ain't gonna happen.

The Bill of Rights are your civil rights. He CAN with hold funding and the courts would back him.

 

[Iceweasel]

He's got his finger in the air. The president can't implement those things but he can use the bully pulpit and maybe some deal making leverage. I'd love to cross state lines with my weapons but there would be massive opposition to it. Oregon isn't bad, but California? ain't gonna happen.

The Bill of Rights are your civil rights. He CAN with hold funding and the courts would back him.

The president doesn't fund anything and it's an Amendment, not part of the BoR.

 

[DarkFury]

DISIR SAID:

"And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it."

Wrong.

No one is 'blaming' gun owners for acts of violence with firearms; and much of what is being proposed conforms with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – we may not like or agree with that jurisprudence, but gun control measures enacted pursuant to that case law is nonetheless Constitutional.

Consequently, there are no 'opponents' of gun rights if what they propose is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, nor are they seeking to 'exploit' anything or 'push' any 'agenda.'

We do need real solutions to address real problems, but attempting to propagate the ridiculous lies quoted above are in no way a 'solution,' as they are not real problems, where such inane rhetoric will serve only to hinder finding and implementing real solutions.

YOUR 2nd Amendment RIGHT should be good in ANY state of the union period.

What IF a lone state outlawed freedom of speech? Same thing. Because it's PROTECTED or is SUPPOSED to be in ALL 50.

 

[DarkFury]

He's got his finger in the air. The president can't implement those things but he can use the bully pulpit and maybe some deal making leverage. I'd love to cross state lines with my weapons but there would be massive opposition to it. Oregon isn't bad, but California? ain't gonna happen.

The Bill of Rights are your civil rights. He CAN with hold funding and the courts would back him.

The president doesn't fund anything and it's an Amendment, not part of the BoR.

 

[Disir]

DISIR SAID:

"And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it."

Wrong.

No one is 'blaming' gun owners for acts of violence with firearms; and much of what is being proposed conforms with current Second Amendment jurisprudence – we may not like or agree with that jurisprudence, but gun control measures enacted pursuant to that case law is nonetheless Constitutional.

Consequently, there are no 'opponents' of gun rights if what they propose is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, nor are they seeking to 'exploit' anything or 'push' any 'agenda.'

We do need real solutions to address real problems, but attempting to propagate the ridiculous lies quoted above are in no way a 'solution,' as they are not real problems, where such inane rhetoric will serve only to hinder finding and implementing real solutions.

Wrong. That isn't how it works after an incident. You can see the 50,000 threads here before all the facts are out. Mental illness is a significant problem and there are no places for many of these people to go. Due to deinstitutionalization and the private sector deciding that it isn't in there best interest to do what they said they were going to do that left a huge opening. There needs to be lifelong care available for those people that are considered a danger to themselves and the community. Not the treat and release crap that happens.IF that happens at all. Many times there is no place that will allow the individual to be admitted. In some of these cases there is nothing wrong with the laws and there is not a damn thing that could have been done on that end. But we endure weeks of political bs until the next zomg moment comes along. Sure, someone might give a nod to the no mental health services available but not enough to actually get something done.

Or, the mentally ill wind up in prison for a few years and are released back on the street until they harm someone else and go back to prison for a few years and cycle in and out. Then a bunch of nitwits say lets release all of the mentally ill from the prisons because gee willickers they don't belong there and even though we still haven't gotten off our asses and brought back the types of hospitals that are necessary lets do it anyway. Oh, squirrel! (I'm not bitter.)

It needs to be fixed. No. It's not a lie.

Alleged Santa Barbara Killer Elliot Rodger and the Twisted Cult of Modern Masculinity
Using "Mental Illness" as a cop-out for Mass shootings | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Shooters of color are called ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs.’ Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?

Cruz lays blame on Obama for inciting killing of Texas deputy

Schizophrenic. Killer. My Cousin.
^^^no gun still mental health problem.

This is some wickedly vile crap:
NRA board member blames pastor for Charleston deaths

This is not the problem:
Shaken Charleston mayor: ‘Far too many guns out there’

Highly politicized.

It will not kill us to all recognize a problem and .................solve it.

 

[Brain357]

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System



Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.



All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.



And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.



We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

BAM! Somebody said something. It's about time.

Yeah I grabbed the last two sections and YES the place is busy.. Same link as OP

"NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.



MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves."

The RIGHT to carry SHOULD be a NATIONAL right because it IS a right given to ALL of us.

I don't see anything about everyone should be able to carry at work?

 

[Brain357]

I thought repubs liked states rights?