The one question that should be asked of every political candidate, regardless of party

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Q: Do you believe that every law-abiding adult citizen should be allowed to own and carry a gun with no permits, clearances etc. required from government?


If the candidate answers anything but "yes", this shows he does not trust the American people with the responsibility of making their own decisions and taking care of themselves.

IOW, it shows that the candidate is unqualified to hold public office or exercise the power of making laws over the rest of us.

It's a good, quick way to separate out the leftists, RINOs, and other govt-uber-alles addicts from normal Americans.

Ridiculous nonsense.

The correct and appropriate response from a presidential candidate would be that he acknowledges, understands, and respects current Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Federal courts, and will seek to uphold the Constitution and that case law – including concerning the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Any other response would be reckless, ignorant, and irresponsible.

 

[sealybobo]

Q: Do you believe that every law-abiding adult citizen should be allowed to own and carry a gun with no permits, clearances etc. required from government?


If the candidate answers anything but "yes", this shows he does not trust the American people with the responsibility of making their own decisions and taking care of themselves.

IOW, it shows that the candidate is unqualified to hold public office or exercise the power of making laws over the rest of us.

It's a good, quick way to separate out the leftists, RINOs, and other govt-uber-alles addicts from normal Americans.

I want all guns registered. Then we can tell if you killed someone. Or when your gun ends up in a criminals hands. You are insane.

No ones gonna round up your guns. We just want to make sure only law abiding citizens have guns.

Do you see what's going on in Detroit? Law abiding citizens killing each other with unregistered fire arms.

If someone kills someone you know, don't you want to know who did it? Ballistics testing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The second amendment states that a "well regulated militia" is required.

Once the United States stood up their own military and national guard, there was no longer a need for a militia.

If you want a gun, fine. Limit the bullet capacity to 10 rounds or less and we have an agreement.

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

Ban large capacity magazines and clips.

 

[daws101]

only a mentally unstable person would ask that kind of question.

And another!

you've caught no one and nothing all sane people would agree with what I said.
attempt to get a life.

 

[g5000]

What about people who have an IQ of 80, if they don't break the law?

Let's not bring Donald Trump into this.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey.............Donald the Chump has already stated that he's got a concealed carry permit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hey.............Donald the Chump has already stated that he's got a concealed carry permit.

T-Rump carries under his toupee?

 

[daws101]

There are people who are mentally deficient who are also law abiding citizens.

Should those people be allowed to carry guns? What about people who have an IQ of 80, if they don't break the law?

should those same mentally deficient and those with an IQ of 80 or lower (your standard) not be allowed to vote ?

if they can't work the voting machine yes or fill out the absentee ballot with out undo pressure to vote the way some one else would want them too.
low IQ people are easily influenced.
that's why there are so many right wing conservatives

 

[daws101]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment, was to make sure government had no power to decide whether a law-abiding citizen should be denied the right to own and carry guns.

And so far, not a single person has come up with a reason why govt should have that power.

that is not the "question" you asked !

btw you are also wrong.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices
the last line is the most important in this argument.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We can NOT screen everyone, nor can we read minds. It's impossible to know the mental state of everyone at any given time. There's is no easy solution to the misuse of guns.

Correct.

But giving Government the power to decide who can have a gun and who can't, is one of the worst possible solutions. The Framers knew that well, and so they wrote the 2nd amendment as an absolute ban, with none of the usual exceptions for "due process" etc.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Since over population is a problem and state legislatures are doing everything they can to ban abortion it might be a good idea to give every mental masterbater who wants to fondle a gun permission to lock and load.

Or since you seem concerned with overpopulation and the conservatives wanting to LIMIT abortions, perhaps you can also get in line with the rest of the country and try to convince the liberals in DC to close the border and start making the 12 million illegals self deport.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The second amendment states that a "well regulated militia" is required.

Once the United States stood up their own military and national guard, there was no longer a need for a militia.

If you want a gun, fine. Limit the bullet capacity to 10 rounds or less and we have an agreement.

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

Ban large capacity magazines and clips.

my rights are not open for you to discuss.
you want to limit guns? fine, limit who can vote by implementing voter ID laws. That way we can make sure the crazies and the criminals and the illegals cant vote. (cuts the democrats base by at least 50%)

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The second amendment states that a "well regulated militia" is required.

Once the United States stood up their own military and national guard, there was no longer a need for a militia.

If you want a gun, fine. Limit the bullet capacity to 10 rounds or less and we have an agreement.

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

Ban large capacity magazines and clips.

The right for people to bear arms was insurance that the government would not be able to control the people. It was written to protect the rest of the Constitution.
the more that the government builds up a military, the more the 2nd is needed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

An excellent example of the mental derangement that is part and parcel of believing a leftist big-govt agenda.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The right for people to bear arms was insurance that the government would not be able to control the people. It was written to protect the rest of the Constitution.
the more that the government builds up a military, the more the 2nd is needed.

Q: Why does the Constitution have a second amendment?

A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

An excellent example of the mental derangement that is part and parcel of believing a leftist big-govt agenda.

And this is an excellent example of the mental derangement that is part and parcel of the right's contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

An excellent example of the mental derangement that is part and parcel of believing a leftist big-govt agenda.

And this is an excellent example of the mental derangement that is part and parcel of the right's contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

and after obama and the left has crapped on the Constitution for the last 7 years, what pray tell is it that the conservatives have done to make you comment in such a way. And dont try to use the liberal republicans as your example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment states that a "well regulated militia" is required.

Once the United States stood up their own military and national guard, there was no longer a need for a militia.

If you want a gun, fine. Limit the bullet capacity to 10 rounds or less and we have an agreement.

It's not the gun itself that gives these psychos the ability to kill so many, it's the number of bullets they can carry at any one time.

Ban large capacity magazines and clips.

The right for people to bear arms was insurance that the government would not be able to control the people. It was written to protect the rest of the Constitution.
the more that the government builds up a military, the more the 2nd is needed.

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment safeguards the right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, having nothing to do with 'checking' the power of government.

There is nothing in the text or history of the Second Amendment to suggest that it was the Framing Generation's intent that the people 'overthrow' government through 'armed rebellion,' there are no criteria established by the Framers 'authorizing' armed rebellion, there is nothing suggesting 'armed rebellion' is 'authorized' absent the political process, or circumventing the judicial process, or to deny the people their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process.

Indeed, there is nothing in any Foundation Era primary source that refers to a specific number of citizens, who as a consequence of their unsubstantiated, subjective perception of 'the government' having become 'tyrannical,' empowered to pursue 'armed rebellion' predicated solely on that unsubstantiated, subjective perception.

The Second Amendment recognizes and codifies the fundamental right of self-defense, not anarchy and unbridled mayhem by a minority of citizens who have succumbed to the delusion of being subject to 'tyranny.'

 

[OKTexas]

There are people who are mentally deficient who are also law abiding citizens.

Should those people be allowed to carry guns? What about people who have an IQ of 80, if they don't break the law?

Nothing stops them from buying a gun now, I don't remember a question about IQ on the form.

 

[my2¢]

My question would be about balancing the budget. If I'm scared I can make a weapon.