The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[PaulF]

But Obama was the only other choice and voting for him as a gun owner would have been stupid and super irresponsible.

But I'm sure Hitler didn't start his life killing people though.......

You have all but proved my point about Trump.

Thank you.

 

[pudly]

Yes, a politician that had (to that point) never, in his history as an executive, sponsored, endorsed, or signed a gun control bill.

Also, the greatest thing to happen to the American gun sales since repeating arms.

Reality is a ***** sometimes...

You are right. Obama has been the best thing for our 2A rights that we've seen.

I'm afraid that old Democrat smokescreen holds no water.

Obama could not get any gun control bills past either red state Democrats, nor Republican controlled House/Senate and was too cowardly to push something and let it play out any time before his second election. However, once he won a second term, he wasted no time dropping the mask and pressing anti-gun measures. Even before his second term officially started (Jan 2013), he pushed 29 anti-gun measures, both legislative and executive actions.

In addition, President "Phone and Pen" gave some non-subtle hints of his real intent for the 2A, such as his nominations of doctrine leftists Elena Kagan & Sonia Sotomayor. It really wasn't hard to see which way Obama was going to go for anyone who wasn't a willing dupe.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Someone put up a wall around Trump's star.

 

[PaulF]

Sometimes, a motivated opposition IS the best thing for our rights...it reminds us that we need to exercise those rights, and to be vigilant against their abuse.

Before Obama got elected "cheap" AR15s ran over a thousand dollars, and NO ONE I knew owned one. After 8 years of the irritant in chief, I can buy a complete rifle for under five hundred bucks, and every one of my friends own AT LEAST one.

Whatever your ideological spin might be...more gun owners expressing their rights is a win for gun rights.

Obama has done our movement far more good than harm, whether you want to admit that it not.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Probably a good idea, a lot of idiot leftists out there that may try to desecrate it. If you love something, you protect it

Someone put up a wall around Trump's star.

 

[Dead Duck]

Someone put up a wall around Trump's star.

Well, it's in CA...so...

Non-Illegal Californians want the wall. The ones that love their kids anyway.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Sometimes, a motivated opposition IS the best thing for our rights...it reminds us that we need to exercise those rights, and to be vigilant against their abuse.

Before Obama got elected "cheap" AR15s ran over a thousand dollars, and NO ONE I knew owned one. After 8 years of the irritant in chief, I can buy a complete rifle for under five hundred bucks, and every one of my friends own AT LEAST one.

Whatever your ideological spin might be...more gun owners expressing their rights is a win for gun rights.

Obama has done our movement far more good than harm, whether you want to admit that it not.

It could be argued that Gov. George Wallace, barking German Shepard's straining at the end of a leash held by a cop, and scenes of water cannons spraying men and women did far more good than harm for the civil rights movement...but I don't think we'd want to want to go throught that period again or desire it to repeat.

And no, Kut or whomever, I'm not equating civil rights struggles with infringements on gun ownership.

 

[pudly]

Sometimes, a motivated opposition IS the best thing for our rights...it reminds us that we need to exercise those rights, and to be vigilant against their abuse.

Before Obama got elected "cheap" AR15s ran over a thousand dollars, and NO ONE I knew owned one. After 8 years of the irritant in chief, I can buy a complete rifle for under five hundred bucks, and every one of my friends own AT LEAST one.

Whatever your ideological spin might be...more gun owners expressing their rights is a win for gun rights.

Obama has done our movement far more good than harm, whether you want to admit that it not.

Oh? You were serious?

Obama didn't build that. But he was the motivation. I'll credit the gun makers for the flood of guns in response to demand from gun owners. They overcame a huge shortage and price increases. In other words, the free market was the hero to Obama's villain.

 

[jamil]

Does that seriously still happen?

Yeah, that's not right.

But, I will quibble with the "through social ... pressure." If a coach participates, or even leads, a prayer before a game with the students, I don't see a problem with it. An invitation to all students who want to participate would be polite, but if it is just a de facto thing that happens, and kids either participate or not, that's ok to me, too.

I know football coaches. If the best player on the team didn't want to pray, he'd still get all the playing time the coach could give him.

My kids have all gone to parochial school, and I think God for that.

I answered this here.

 

[PaulF]

It could be argued that Gov. George Wallace, barking German Shepard's straining at the end of a leash held by a cop, and scenes of water cannons spraying men and women did far more good than harm for the civil rights movement...but I don't think we'd want to want to go throught that period again or desire it to repeat.

And no, Kut or whomever, I'm not equating civil rights struggles with infringements on gun ownership.

Similar idea, yes. People have a tendency to become complacent when they think their rights aren't in jeopardy.

The images of angry racists squaring down against women and children with attack dogs and fire hoses helped to remind the rest of us that the government will take from us whatever that can, and it helped to create a pushback.

The Obama presidency did the same for gun ownership in many ways. More people began to talk about guns, their legitimate purposes, and their place in society. More people began to realize that their rights are threatened and action was needed.

Every beautiful pearl starts as an irritating grain of sand.

 

[PaulF]

Oh? You were serious?

Obama didn't build that. But he was the motivation. I'll credit the gun makers for the flood of guns in response to demand from gun owners. They overcame a huge shortage and price increases. In other words, the free market was the hero to Obama's villain.

I'm honestly not sure what to make of your post, I get the feeling you are willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'll say it again: Trump is not our ally.

 

[Dead Duck]

Similar idea, yes. People have a tendency to become complacent when they think their rights aren't in jeopardy.

The images of angry racists squaring down against women and children with attack dogs and fire hoses helped to remind the rest of us that the government will take from is whatever that can, and it helped to create a pushback.

The Obama presidency did the same for gun ownership in many ways. More people began to talk about guns, their legitimate purposes, and their place in society. More people began to realize that their rights are threatened and action was needed.

Every beautiful pearl starts as an irritating grain of sand.

As a voting gun owner, who would you suggest that's worthy of our vote this year?

 

[pudly]

The Obama presidency did the same for gun ownership in many ways. More people began to talk about guns, their legitimate purposes, and their place in society. More people began to realize that their rights are threatened and action was needed.

Every beautiful pearl starts as an irritating grain of sand.

As a voting gun owner, who would you suggest that's worthy of our vote this year?

Following Paul's logic, the one that threatens gun rights the most would be the best choice.

 

[jamil]

The Second Amendment is about more than just an "interest in guns." Hopefully the haters who go out of their way to promote a Hillary victory will study up on it. Second Amendment proponents understand that, while we may not all be one issue voters, 2A must be priority number one as it is the foundation of our nation.

It is foolish to believe that Trump will not be better than Hillary, when she is running on a gun-control platform and he is backed by the NRA. We should all be doing our best to educate foolish gun owners.

When I say interest in guns, I am including 2A rights. And my point is still the same. It is reasonable to believe that Trump will be no better than Hillary on the 2A, because Trump has pandered before. It's my feeling--not factual knowledge--that Trump is more likely to appoint more individualist leaning judges than Hillary, notwithstanding the ones he appoints because of favors.

So I'm not going to condemn people for having a different feeling about Trump than I have. If you want other people to vote for your guy, you might think about voting for someone they're more likely to support.

But otherwise, I'd prefer that people vote for the person they actually want to lead the country and let everyone else do the same. And if people's conscience won't let them vote for any, well, that's their choice. They aren't beholding to me or you for their vote. You don't own their right to vote. They do.

There is so much factually wrong in this statement, it's hard to know where to even begin...

The second amendment was not "the foundation of our nation". Our nation was founded as a criminal enterprise...a revolution. Legal ownership of guns had absolutely nothing to do with it...the founding of our nation was an act of treason to the British crown.

The second amendment was, quite literally, an afterthought. The entire government was already ratified and in place without the bill of rights...passed over two full years later. If gun ownership was such a universally-held priority, why wasn't it included in the original constitution?

Second...you are deluding yourself if you think Trump's agenda includes anything but Trump. Our gun rights are just as much a pawn to be sacrified to him as they are to Clinton...it's a good thing we will never find that out for realz.

At the end of the day the NRA endorsement is meaningless...they also endorsed Rommey, who had an established history of SIGNING GUN CONTROL INTO LAW...they endorse the Rebublican front runner every election.

There are some things I find wrong with this. I think while technically true, it's not relevant to the bwframe's point that our nation was founded as a revolution. The reason our nation was founded is the relevant thing. The founders wanted to create a nation of different principles, based on individual liberty. Rather than the principles behind the 2A being an afterthought, they were so forefront that many of the framers, thought those principles were so obviously protected by the constitution, that encoding any of the Bill of Rights was unnecessary.

On the rest, you could certainly be correct.

 

[PaulF]

Worthy?

None of the above.

More predictable: Clinton.

More containable: Clinton.

A better motivator for our "footsoldiers": Clinton.

Who will drive more people into gun ownership? Based on the "Obama effect", I think Clinton.

Besides, I am holding out hope that the republicans will begin impeachment proceedings almost immediately...so again, a self-rectifying problem.

 

[PaulF]

Following Paul's logic, the one that threatens gun rights the most would be the best choice.

You seem to be ignoring my greater point: I see them BOTH as a tremendous threat to gun rights.

Clinton is a familiar enemy, her battle plans are well-known.

Trump is a wild card, how he plans to **** us remains to be seen.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You seem to be ignoring my greater point: I see them BOTH as a tremendous threat to gun rights.

Clinton is a familiar enemy, her battle plans are well-known.

Trump is a wild card, how he plans to **** us remains to be seen.

I was hoping, after the first 4 years of Obama and the enacting of Obamacare, folks would see how low they'd gone and correct in 2012...but they didn't. Then, in this primary season, I'd hoped that they'd believe they had surely hit rock bottom and elect a guy/gal that really was a shift back towards Constitutional feelty...but no. It's possible, we haven't really hit rock bottom yet. We can't really come to realize we have a problem and generate the desire to change course until we do. Maybe 4 more years under Hillary is what we need--of course---maybe Trump will serve the purpose just as well.

 

[jamil]

Worthy?

None of the above.

More predictable: Clinton.

More containable: Clinton.

A better motivator for our "footsoldiers": Clinton.

Who will drive more people into gun ownership? Based on the "Obama effect", I think Clinton.

Besides, I am holding out hope that the republicans will begin impeachment proceedings almost immediately...so again, a self-rectifying problem.

What you said about Obama became true because of the circumstances. Obama came to office not having guns very high on his todo list. We're fortunate that the Sandy Hook Shooting happened after Republicans took over the House. We're fortunate that Republicans have controlled both houses during each of the subsequent onslaughts of attacks on gun owner's rights. The general public doesn't seem to be overly upset with progressive states' egregious gun laws. The general public didn't fuss too much over the AWB that eventually expired, and they don't seem to even care that it did expire. I think I don't want to leave my rights up to a public that just doesn't care much either way.

As far as who you vote for, that's not mine to say. Nevertheless, I'd say I'm okay with you voting for "none of the above", but that implies I have to give you some kind of permission. And that's what I'd like to get across to everyone else. We can discuss and influence each other's choices, but we have no right to declare what they must be. We don't have a right to project our own views or to judge you by our standards. However, if you actually cast a ballot for Hillary, I'm gonna say something.

 

[jamil]

I was hoping, after the first 4 years of Obama and the enacting of Obamacare, folks would see how low they'd gone and correct in 2012...but they didn't. Then, in this primary season, I'd hoped that they'd believe they had surely hit rock bottom and elect a guy/gal that really was a shift back towards Constitutional feelty...but no. It's possible, we haven't really hit rock bottom yet. We can't really come to realize we have a problem and generate the desire to change course until we do. Maybe 4 more years under Hillary is what we need--of course---maybe Trump will serve the purpose just as well.

Apparently people thought that the prospect of Obama winning was no different from, or wasn't as bad as the prospect of Romney winning. I think they were obviously wrong.

 

[PaulF]

I don't plan to cast a ballot in the presidential election. Indiana will fall to Trump. The electoral college will hand victory to Clinton.

A Clinton presidency almost guarantees a republican "bump" en the next congressional election.

What do you think a Trump presidency will mean on that front?

Yhe backlash could be huge, and we stand to lose a tremendous amount of ground if democrats attain a veto-proof majority.