Donald Trump (courtesy benchmarkreporter.com)

PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple . . .

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

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.

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

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.

ED: The above was posted on donaldjtrump.com

Recommended For You

200 Responses to BREAKING: Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Releases His Gun Policy

  1. He’s selling platitudes as actual positions. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the strongest 2A candidates on the stage. They truly believe as we do.

    • +1 for Cruz. Based on his performance in the past couple of years in the senate I’m pretty sure he’ll be my first vote. I like trump just for the fact that he doesn’t care what people think about him, but after learning about his ideas on vaccines… Well lets just say I trust Doc Carson in that regard…

      • You realize the Dr. Carson agreed with Trump that they should have the option on the table of spreading the vaccines out and having smaller doses, right?

        • Spreading the vaccines out and having smaller doses is *not* the same as claiming and believing “Vaccines cause Autism!”.

        • Seriously, Geoff. The two things are on different planets and it’s not like Trump has any freaking clue what he’s talking about anyway. Not to mention the fact that spreading a given vaccine out into smaller doses would not work for many vaccines at all, since a certain minimum dose is absolutely mandatory in order to elicit an immune response from the body, without which there’s no immunity gained and the injection is then completely pointless. Carson is correct that certain things we vaccinate for are not particularly serious diseases and aren’t life threatening to the vast majority of people, etc etc, and those could be [more] optional. We could also consider spreading out vaccines from each other instead of doing a handful of them all at once. Obviously it’s more convenient and less stressful to get a combo shot that vaccinates against multiple things or to get three shots back-to-back and just get it over with instead of visiting the doctor every 6 months for a year and getting one shot each time… but maybe spreading it out can better prevent side effects.

    • I think of candidates like pizza

      Ron Paul is like a pizza some frinds talked about getting in some far away country, it was the best ever, but you have no chance of getting it; sorry.

      Rand is like pizza a few hours away, but its near closing time. So maybe we can get it or maybe we get the last option…..

      Trump is dominos, its good for takeout pizza, and you probably are able to get it no problem, which is better than the last option….

      Which is of course hillary or sanders. Dog crap and broken glass slapped into a pizza box and heated in the sun for an afternoon. yummy.

      So maybe we could somehow get the great president, but it is looking like dominos, which is better than democrats!

    • The thing about Trump is that when he puts it out there everybody listens. Trump has staked out his territory on gun rights. Now let’s see what the other candidates do. I’m betting if they had some thoughts on how to make accommodation with “sensible” gun-controllers (are you listening Jeb!) those thoughts just went out the window.

    • “He’s selling platitudes as actual positions.”

      Yep.

      It got Obama elected, remember ‘Hope and Change’?

      Don’t underestimate platitudes…

      • Hillary was against them before she was againster them, would like to kill every owner, and imprison every owner of lesser guns. Its just common sense. For the children. If it saves one life.

        Someone capable of learning is not a bad thing.

        • Indeed. I think a great many people have learned a lot about our rights and why they are important over the past few years

        • Don’t forget Heinrich Hillary Clinton when running for the senate took $3 million in campaign contributions from Norinco, maker of the Ak-47 and SKS, and their U.S. subsidiary/importer PolyTech owned by a Chinaman named Keng.

        • I neglected to mention DemoFascist frontrunner Comrade Hillary Clinton took those millions of dollars from Norinco/Polytech while at the same time advocating renewing the so-called “assault weapons” ban that was about to expire

    • Woody, I agree that Paul & Cruz are the gold standard here but the reality is the odds are mighty long on them at the moment. As platitudes go, they’re clear on where Trump is going – I’ll take these platitudes any day over Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley. We don’t always (often?) get the one we want, as leaders – and let’s face it, as the Armed Intelligentsia, we are leaders – we have to still make a choice.

      • Paul, Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, would make good cabinet members, probably good presidents as well. Losing here does not mean you’re a loser. I won’t be voting, both because I am not registered as Republican and because who ever heard of a TX primary being important to anyone? But Bush and Huckabee are already off my list, I will not vote for them. And Carson is on the edge.

    • TRUTH. The 2nd Amendment is mostly about defending ourselves against tyrannical government. Self Defense, yes, but not the way Trump was talking about it.

    • I understand what you mean but it doesn’t matter.

      A fundamental right should not be subjected to a use test. Why the founders put it in there is one thing but whether that’s the only justification for the right is quite another. And if I accept the position that the second amendment (or any of them, really, except perhaps the ones re Prohibition) was put in for one specific reason and should be li!noted to that application, then I am opening the door for barring any use other than the “approved” one.

      Okay, so if the 2a was there to allow us to overthrow a tyrrany, then you clearly don’t need anything but the latest and best military rifle. No need for handguns, lever guns, hunting, skeet shooting, or any of that concealed carry stuff.

      I’m sorry, but I don’t think we should fall into that logic trap.

      • Okay, so if the 2a was there to allow us to overthrow a tyrrany, then you clearly don’t need anything but the latest and best military rifle. No need for handguns, lever guns, hunting, skeet shooting, or any of that concealed carry stuff.
        Well, I was sort of hoping for mortars, tanks, artillery, belt fed machine guns, claymore mines, missiles, phosgene gas, silencers, grenade launchers, grenades, fighter planes, and other goodies.

    • Indiana Tom, the following is not meant to criticize what you say, but to refocus the perspective of what you say. Please receive it as such.

      The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a “Natural” Right. It existed before the Constitution existed (aka the formal State) and it exists despite ANY Constitution for any Nation or sub State. It is one of those “unalienable” Rights that “all men” (aka every person on the Planet) is endowed with. It is the supreme Right to protect and defend one’s own Life against any threat. It is not limited to “Tyrannical Governments” because they are artifices created by people to organize their Societies. If there were no “Governments” or “Societies”, every person would still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      We must never forget this because it defines the very core of our contention that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

      • : “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.”
        My interpretation of the entire 2-A clause and why the founding fathers stuck it into the Constitution makes more sense than some others here. I agree with Randy Wakeman that the military type weapons are the true protected guns of the 2A, and really not some Duck Commander special. If people want to have a pocket pistol or a O/U shotgun, that is fine, but that is not the real intention of the 2-A. The NFA Act of 1934 is totally unconstitutional and all the stuff that is regulated and banned by it should not be.

        • Nicely stated. Basically, I think the Founders were saying both things. We know they thought the Nation could do without a “Standing Army” at the time they wrote the Second Amendment. Their use of the words, “the right”, I think, was meant to acknowledge their belief that RKBA was a natural, pre-exisitng Right to self-defense. Self-defense against a Tyrannical Government or against an individual assailant, it makes no difference. Either emphasis includes the ownership of military arms, pocket pistols, or whatever else you choose. Yes, the NFA of 1934 should be repealed and is unConstitutional, as is GCA 1968 and Brady Bill of the early 1990’s…

  2. He certainly can afford to hire the best policy writers in the business, but I cannot vote for him. I would call him a nihilist, but really his own ego is his platform, narcissism his religion. I’ve heard nothing from him about policy but “I’ll hire the best people… there are things we can look at… I’ve made billions…” His candidacy is an insult to the Democratic process.

    • “His candidacy is an insult to the Democratic process.”

      So you’ll hand the presidency to an avowed anti?

      With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    • ”His candidacy is an insult to the Democratic process.”

      The Democratic process is laying in the gutter and suffering from an ass raping by the left-wing media and both political parties for the past 20 years.

      Now all it is is voting for the least bad. This is what 40+ years of leftist control of our schools have brought us.

      The leftist media is glad you’ll sit out the vote, that’s essentially another vote for Hildabeast.

      As Dennis Prager says…..”The only candidate you’ll agree 100% with is yourself running for President. At some point you have to grow up and realize that.”

      • You do realize the Donald is an Ivy Leaguer, right? University of Pennsylvania, Warton School of Business

    • “but really his own ego is his platform, narcissism his religion”

      In other word, a typical politician, regardless of party

      • I agree.

        As long as he doesn’t change his opinion/outlook on guns again, as he’s already done several times, when it was convenient. As long as he doesn’t act on the myriad of sub-issues that were left-out of his list, such as taxes on guns and ammo, or more and more ammo restrictions. Please note that he didn’t rule out increasing background checks; he just said “What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.” He seems to think background checks are a good thing, so after the system is “fixed”, it could be expanded without violating anything he said.

        • NineShooter,

          Trump was pretty open about himself: when he is wearing his business hat, he goes out of his way to make friends … and he goes out of his way to avoid making enemies.

          What is the biggest risk? That he is a “salesman” (just another word for a politician) and will back the policies that get him the most votes? Great. Public opinion is solidly pro-gun. Or, he is principled and backs pro-gun policies. I don’t see the down side here. What am I missing?

        • What you’re missing is how vocal the “vocal minority” can be, especially when they have the lefty media to amplify their “concerns”, and millions of low-info urban voters to echo them. This combo has been responsible for many of our worst laws, including the useless Assault Weapon Ban and Mag Ban, which are still in effect in many states after being enshrined in state laws, even though the Federal law was allowed to sunset.

          We need people who will stand up and say “No more”, not folks who will go where the political winds blow them. The Donald has proved just how craven he can be when public opinion turns against him, with his obvious and very public flip-flop on the subject of his opinion of Carly Fiorina’s face. Instead of apologizing, he just switched positions, smiled, and lied to the public without missing a beat. It told me all I needed to know about how he’d handle things if the going got tough and public opinion (or what he THOUGHT was public opinion, amplified by the MSM and the left) went against him.

          I’d probably grudgingly support him as the lessor of two evils if it came down to him or a “real” Dem in a national election, but otherwise, I’ll be working to get a better choice through the primary process.

    • Trump has been eyeing the presidency since 2009 when he changed parties. He figured it was the Republican’s turn after Obama won in ’08. He may be saying attractive things now, but his stances until only recently were left. Trump is not so much for America as Trump is for Trump. Trump is a mistake.

      • If Trump only does 5% of what he says, he still will have done more for shrinking government than any other President in history. And yeah, that includes Reagan. Cruz, Rand, and Trump are the only ones that seem to be willing to give more than just lip service to the Constitution and rule of law. Carly and Ben do to a lesser extent, but I don’t know if they can actually stand up to the GOP dinosaurs.

    • Look up Project Exile. It’s basically federal government being in the business of enforcing gun laws on state level. I can see why Trump doesn’t see it as a problem, since he had never shown any indication of being a “states rights” candidate, and if anything, his platform is in many ways incompatible with that… but I thought a lot of people here believed in the Tenth and all that stuff?

      • Re: Project Exile. I serving at present on a Grand Jury. Each time we hear a case with a firearms felony charge we are told that the DA is going to allow a Federal prosecution because the penalties are greater. I have no problem with that. Do you?

        • Since the Constitution does not give the Federal government any general police powers, yes I do have a problem with it. But then I would repeal 99% of the Federal criminal code and disband the FBI.

        • It’s right there in the Preamble, i.e., under “ensure domestic tranquility.”

        • A hard Tenther position is that the Federal government cannot legitimately have any gun control laws, period. “Shall not be infringed” and all that.

        • >> It’s right there in the Preamble, i.e., under “ensure domestic tranquility.”

          Oh? Is that the same one which allowed jailing draft protesters during WW1, and Japanese interment during WW2? Very handy, that clause.

  3. Too bad he’s such an idiot in front of cameras and on social media. I could actually vote for this 2A stance. If he had a working brain-mouth filter and thought before he spoke he’d actually be viable.

    • “If he had a working brain-mouth filter and thought before he spoke he’d actually be viable.”

      Here’s the thing – Considering who’s gonna be actually voting, that may well be what gets him elected.

    • Why should he have to filter his thoughts? So as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, or avoid the ire of those who would have him toe the party-line? After all, playing nice with the left & media and softballing the opposition sure has served us well in the last two presidential elections, hasn’t it?
      And why does he even need a filter, when we have all those prime-time political analysts to do it for us?

      • Face it, there’s a difference between “Being unfiltered” and “Being a dick”.
        His expiration date is fast approaching.

        His “I don’t have to give answers because I’m WINNING!” is going to come to a screeching halt when he’s “LOSING!”.

        • Just because someone is a dick, doesn’t always mean they’re wrong.

          There’s also a difference between actually being a dick, and being called a dick by those who’s own dicks are simply hurt from being clamped in a vice for so long.

          Sorry that whichever horse you’ve hitched your hopes on isn’t doing well…. but would you rather run a polite soft-puppet who not only panders to their own party, but also to those firmly in the pocket of the left; or someone who can beat the left’s media machine at it’s own game, along with those who are completely owned by it?

        • But there are plenty of people who won’t vote for a dick, even if they agree with him (or her). They consider good character an important qualification for the job, and I don’t disagree, personally.

          If one is right but a dick, it’s a net negative in the voting booth.

        • One of the reasons why he’s doing so well in the polls is that he’s an unapologetic dick.

          Look, I don’t mean to piddle on the parades of those who think that national-level politics should be like a high school debate society. I really don’t.

          Oh, what the hell… yes I do. And I will.

          Look, the only people who think that politics in this country should be the genteel, effete “process” that they espouse and cherish today are those who are utterly ignorant of history. If one merely reads the actual accounts of how politics was conducted 150 to 200 years ago, one would see that Trump is a pussycat, a mere shadow of the sort of behavior that used to be commonplace. Professional politicians want politics to be smooth, polite and conducted according to some higher ideal of behavior – and that’s why they have their silk panties in a crumpled wad at the prospect of Trump getting into this thing. Go look at the history leading up to the Burr-Hamilton duel, for example. There have been fistfights on the US Senate floor in the past, etc.

          Trump is doing well in large part because he’s a dick – who doesn’t apologize. As soon as you apologize, the press piles on. If you don’t apologize, or you give the press one of the Democrats’ time-proven non-apologies (eg, “I’m sorry you feel hurt by my telling you the truth”), the press literally doesn’t know what to do.

  4. I will take National Reciprocity if I can get it and most of the rest looks OK. I would like for him to outrage some on the Left by talking about dumping some of the Unconstitutional, unneeded, and pointless laws we already have. Yeah, I know it isn’t gonna happen, but I can wish…..

  5. If he meant it I’d support him. As it stands I feel like he’s just a showman who knows his audience. I hope I’m wrong that he means it, that he’ll get elected and make it happen. I doubt it.

    • 2016 is over. Whoever the Democrats nominate will win because:

      If Trump doesn’t get the nomination the Trumpster fanatics will stay home.

      If not Trump doesn’t get the nomination then actual Conservatives will stay home.

      Trump is a big government crony capitalist Democrat. I believe nothing he says including what he will do on border security. Here is what it would take for me to believe that he has had a change of heart on the Second Amendment. Take on Andrew Cuomo and the Safe Act. Trump is a big guy in New York City and State. When he speaks the NY pols listen. Putting out a slick position paper is easy . He can take act now.

      • Don’t forget the third option: Trump doesn’t get nominated, runs as an independent, Republican vote split big time. Even Kerry would win against that.

        What, you say he signed the pledge? As in, a piece of paper that has zero legal weight? And reputation-wise… this is Trump, why would he care?

      • Bernie Sanders cannot win. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

        Hillary now cannot win, either. The email issue, and more especially the incompetent way in which she has handled it, is cratering her in the polling.

        Biden? He could win, but he’d have to get in before the end of this year.

        The rest of their field isn’t going anywhere in a hurry. The DNC allowed themselves to become fixated upon a few high-profile personalities for the last three election cycles, and they now have a shortage of well-funded talent to put up for office.

        • I can assure you that against someone like Trump, the vast majority of Dem electorate will promptly forget about any email issues and vote for Hillary. Just as all the Republicans bemoaning how “establishment” Romney was still voted for him over Obama.

          The only way Dems can lose this electoral cycle is if they are facing someone who does not elicit a strong negative knee-jerk reaction in the general election. The problem is that the party base has clearly decided that they don’t want a candidate like that this time round because they’re “tired of political correctness”; hence Trump. In other words, a candidate that is electable in the general election will likely not make it out of the primaries.

          Out of the “anti-establishment” candidates that might just make it, Fiorina could give Hillary a good run for her money. Maybe Carson. But definitely not Trump or Cruz.

        • With the polling that Trump is pulling among blacks and hispanics, the Democrats have a problem.

          Trump has his finger on something: The way that the US economy hasn’t done anything for people with only a high school degree for, oh, 15+ years. And that’s in large part due to unrestricted immigration and “free trade.”

        • >> With the polling that Trump is pulling among blacks and hispanics, the Democrats have a problem.

          Are you, by chance, confusing Trump’s rating among Black and Hispanic Republicans with that of the general populace? Because the latter can only be described as dismal – 82% unfavorable among Hispanics overall, and 68% unfavorable among Blacks, according to the most recent numbers that I could find.

  6. On first glance, looks good.

    I wish he would have made right-of-travel a part of that list…

    I doubt The Donald will survive the ‘Politic’n Grindhouse’, but stranger and far more bizarre things have happened…

  7. national carry, no restrictions on mags or scary looking guns. That’s a huge net plus. I’ll take it compared to the status quo we currently have.

    • Even if it meant registering all your guns? Because that’s how the argument will go. If you like the “driver’s license = carry license” equation, realize that all cars that are driven interstate or on public roads are registered, so we can tell who the owner is and whether or not they’re rightfully possessed or stolen. VIN = serial number.

      50-state carry would be nice, but not if the price is registration. There’s only one reason for gun registration, in the long run. It doesn’t stop anything, it doesn’t prevent anything, it doesn’t reduce anything, but it makes eventual confiscation a far more viable possibility. There’s no guarantee that all future presidents and congresses will by pro-gun, or even neutral, and folks keep forgetting that important point.

      • Ummmm, Trump said nothing about registration. Not sure where you’re getting this from….

        Trumps position is a net positive by far.

        Being able to own an M4 in NYC and carry there is a huge win… I’d take it.

      • Registration of individual guns vs. carry permit are VERY different issues and we must not conflate them.

        Registration of guns is a threat more-or-less in proportion to the proposed scheme. Consider registration of handguns vs rifles. If the SHTF the militia will meet the rifles, handguns not so much. Consider national vs. municipal registration; that a few cities have registration doesn’t much matter. It’s when too many States have registration that it becomes worrisome.

        Carry permits aren’t nearly as significant a threat. They don’t touch gun owners who only keep guns at home or transport long-guns. Very hard to find a significant portion of rifle owners baed on concealed-carry permit holders. If gun owners were just 4.5% of the population then governments could roll them up. However, a militia of 4.5% of the population wouldn’t have the capacity to secure a free state. We have about 45% of households with guns. Roll that up and there would remain no tax base. 45% of the population comprising a militia is a formidable force.

        The important question – today and for all time – is to maintain a super-majority of gun owners. The fact is that you can count card-holders; you can’t count Constitutional-Carriers. As the Shall-Issue States publish card-holder figures we are showing our strength. Growth rates of 5 – 10 – 15% in Shall-Issue States (the majority) can be extrapolated to the Constitutional-Carry States which are still a small minority. It will serve our cause just fine for the card-holder growth to continue at a rapid pace AND for Shall-Issue States to gradually go Constitutional-Carry. Shall-Issue States continue to advertise our growing strength while Constitutional-Carry States (moving up from behind) tell the voters that carrying guns is not so inflamed an issue as they may have thought before.

        We PotG need to think hard about the political impact of various measures we want to advance. E.g., what might advance the acceptance of guns in civilian hands more:
        – Constitutional Concealed carry?
        – Open Carry (with or without cards) plus Shall-Issue Concealed-Carry?

        Our efforts MIGHT be better spent exercising our OC rights in OC States (in a calculated politically-expedient program) as compared to remaining in the closet with invisible, uncounted, Concealed-Carry.

      • We should definitely bargain with them. In fact, in exchange for a national carry of some sort, I would be willing to give them what they are demanding every time there is a shooting! Ban firearm possession by felons! Make a big noise about it, invite antis to phone their congressman and demand it! Even if it didn’t work, it would be fun hearing the Dems shouting “we already have that!” for a change.

  8. Primary promises mean jack squat.

    We all already know where he stands, based on his past pronouncements when he wasn’t running for office. He’s an elitist out for himself and is no fan of the common man’s rights.

    He’s just lying to get support from determined people who actually show up to vote, as opposed to unthinking, over excited nobodies who just answer pollsters’ questions.

    • Sure, nobody can honestly change their mind from a previously held view from over a decade ago. And if they’ve written it down in a book or put it on the internet, there’s no take-backs ever…..

      • Sure they can.

        And if they’ve “honestly” changed their mind once, they can “honestly” change it right back again, can’t they? Or would you argue with a straight face that there’s NO WAY that could happen? Some might even say that it’s MORE likely that a person would change again, if they already did it once and were rewarded for it (got elected).

        Which is why I’ll stick with the folks who got gun-rights right in the first place and can tell you why it should be that way, vs. the various “born again” 2nd amendment supporters who suddenly “saw the light”, when they realized that doing so might help them get what they want (votes).

        • I’m pretty sure that most everybody running has at one time or another supported an AWB, most do now. Because they don’t know any better, they are lied to along with the rest of us.

        • Then maybe it’s up to us to educate them, to let them know it didn’t work last time (even some major Dems said so, after the sunset, and there is a Justice Department study that also said it was a bust), and that it won’t work this time, either. And that we won’t just stand by and watch obviously ineffective laws be passed, so the anti-gun folks can use them as a stepping-stone and excuse to get even STIFFER gun control laws passed in the future!

          Make them EXPLAIN how their proposals will work; specifically how it will prevent the next shooting, or any of the last dozen high-profile shootings. Make them squirm, make them stutter, make them LIE and force them to make more of their outrageously false or unlikely claims that folks will immediately see through.

          If we don’t do it, no one else will.

      • Your third rate sarcasm aside, no, nobody can; not when the comparison is talk then vs. talk now.

        Talk talk talk….chit chat chit chat…

        If there were any epiphany on his part, he would back it with actions and advocacy, not just eventually mention his “new” stance belatedly and reluctantly. He would’ve put his money up to counter Bloomie’s billions. He wouldn’t have used his wealth and connections to get a NY carry license. He would’ve refused it on principle and shouted from the rooftops how great an infringement NY’s gun laws are.

        He’s done none of that. He’s had some campaign flunky cobble together some 2A talking points in facile fashion to curry favor with bitter, gun clinging conservatives. It won’t do.

        • Good story, but in case you haven’t noticed he uses no cue cards or teleprompter (unlike essentially everyone else on both sides), generally is “off the cuff”, saying some flunky makes it up for him is simply nonsense, not worthy of discussion. Whoever YOUR preferred candidate is probably has a huge number of flunkies making stuff up for him/her, spending 100 grand a month to buy his own PC “opinion”, but that is very unlikely with Trump.

        • Larry? Sorry to wilt your priapism hard on for this guy, but yeah, he has flunkies. As for teleprompters, perhaps not, but this 2A position piece was published on his website. What the Hell does that have to do with teleprompters??? How does a printed piece prove his originality? The points he makes are boilerplate pro-gun stuff, after all. An original candidate would eschew this cliched crap as being unworthy rehashing and statement of the obvious.

          Not that he’d need teleprompters. Have you heard his speeches? And by “speeches” I mean “speech”, since he has but one. It’s the same tired tirade about his billions, illegal immigration, his deal making, illegal immigration, China and Mexico beating us on trade, illegal immigration, and how he get America “winning” again. (Charlie Sheen, call your office, then your copyright attorney!) Then something else….oh yeah….illegal immigration.

          It’s a ridiculous speech anyone can hear on any barstool at any neighborhood watering hole from Happy Hour through last call, every day, punctuated with the same stale laugh lines. (Did you hear the one about the Saudis only making *half* a billion dollars per day, now that oil prices have plunged? Yeah, me, too, only about a hundred times since May….) Listen to his answers to surprise questions, especially those requiring specifics, and you’ll more bobbing and weaving than in that ludicrous hairpiece of his.

          More proof? Look to his work in the field he claims supremacy in: business. Go look at his books. Do the names Tony Schwartz, Bill Zanker, and Meredith McIver mean anything to you? They sure do to “the Donald”, since they’re some of the co-authors on Trump’s best selling business books.

          Grow up, lar bear. Your boy’s as phony as they come and you’re falling for it hook, line, and sinker. None of which has anything to do with me or the candidates I’m supporting.

    • “He’s an elitist out for himself and is no fan of the common man’s rights.”

      So, I take it you didn’t vote for Romney, McCain or Bush the Lesser either. That sentence describes all three of them.

      • You mean, when those men were already the party’s nominee with a viable chance of winning and the alternatives were communists, which is a completely different scenario from this 2016 primary featuring a dozen and a half Republicans spanning a wide range of conservative, libertarian, constitutional, personal, and mainstream (read: sellout) ideologies?

        Is that the apples to orangutans comparison you meant? Then, yes, I did vote for each of those individuals in their respective general elections. Any other sophistries you care or dare to try to slip by me, or have you shot your wad?

    • Look, all promises in DC or the pursuit of office in DC have expiration dates. It is a rare politician who won’t sell their own mother to a Turkish whorehouse in the pursuit of power.

      There have been more than a couple of erstwhile “pro-gun” politicians, with real, actual records of past pro-RKBA statements, who have sold us down the river come legislation time.

      This is why the following words from the past still apply:

      “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” (Some guy named Patrick Henry some time ago…)

      • “pro-gun” politicians, with real, actual records of past pro-RKBA statements, who have sold us down the river come legislation time.”

        Most recently Manchin and Reid.

      • I agree, DG. That’s why I can’t accept at face value party affiiation or current statements or even past votes, for that matter.

        Some people, like Gore back in TN or Jeb down in FL, are severely constricted by state politics. They must conform to conservative standards while they incubate their political careers. Once they obtain national office, they’re free to let their infringement flag fly.

        The true believers I look to are those who’ve actually fought for firearms freedoms, ideally winning, but at least having put their rears on the line along the way.

        A politician needs to show me he/she has moved the needle, or at least held the line, and has some skin in the game. A few expedient statements or photo ops doesn’t cut it.

  9. So far he’s the only candidate I’ve heard say we need a national right to carry law. I think it is doable, but there’s going to be some sort of compromise with democrats about how it is done.

    I would imagine there would have to be some sort of minimum level training requirement accepted by all states. I wonder what those requirements would be?

    • “So far he’s the only candidate I’ve heard say we need a national right to carry law.”

      But don’t we already have one?

      Enforce the laws already on the books? How about force the government to obey the laws already on the books?

      I think I read somewhere a line about “…the Right of The People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      • Yeah, but the various states are being childish on what states they have reciprocity with so we need a law passed to put a stop to that tomfoolery.

        • How about this for a national law, passed by a Republican congress and signed by a republican president. Look out, I’m going to write down the entire thing. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          Think SCOTUS could find it unconstitutional? Think it could be “misinterpreted”? Just sayin’

  10. I’ll give him credit for highlighting immigration and telling reporters to go shove their PC games. That’s good and important.

    But after that he’s a total fail. His “I’m winning” schtick is wearing thin and he’ll be in free-fall when he starts losing. His performance at last debate was juvenile and you can tell that he didn’t read a single page of prep material for the debate. He totally F’ing winged it and just about any one of us could have stood and stage and said as little of substance as he did.

      • “He doesn’t even care enough to crack the books.”

        I don’t disagree.

        But image *sells*.

        And he’s a salesman.

        I fully expect him to do whatever it takes to make the sale.

      • So was Reagan’s! Is this a kids’ forum, or do you guys recall the Carter-Reagan debate when Jimmy claimed Reagan wasn’t up to the 18-hour days and 7-day weeks that he, himself, had been spending micromanaging every aspect of government like a rank amateur. Reagan simply answered that he would have qualified peeps for that stuff, get a good night’s sleep every night. Absolutely crushed it. Trump is correct, assuming he can find the people, and I’d bet he could do a better job of that than anyone else in the country, candidate, hell, politician or not.

  11. I don’t believe a word of it. But he sure knows what to say to get the people he needs voting for him to buy it. No wonder he’s a salesman.

    • You don’t have to believe what a Republican says. But you do believe the domocrats correct? Who do you perfer? Clinton, Sanders or O’Malley?

        • Sanders is a liar. He voted for the Clinton assault weapons ban. He does not support the second amendment. He says only old white people should have firearms. Thank you for coming out of the closet as a Sanders supporter.

        • I don’t need to “come out of the closet” as a Sanders supporter, given that I have identified myself as such before on numerous occasions (but no, I don’t agree with him on guns).

          But that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about lying specifically, not things that you don’t like in general. How is Sanders voting for AWB “lying”? Last I checked, he did not say one thing and then vote for something else. His voting record is entirely consistent with his publicly espoused views.

  12. I am a single issue voter, my issue is gun rights. I have always been a single issue voter, I will always be a single issue voter. If the 2016 election is a contest between Jar Jar Trump “meesa so first class” and Jabba the Hutllary “more gun control”…., well, I am a single issue voter.

    • “If the 2016 election is a contest between Jar Jar Trump ‘meesa so first class’ and Jabba the Hutllary ‘more gun control’ …”

      You, sir, win the Intertubez for the day!

  13. Trump seems to have grown up a bit… He’s insulated from reality by the money he’s made, and the positive reinforcement of that fiscal success retards his growth in other areas. “Being this way is why I win so hard, why should I consider being any different?”

    I believe he’s a changing man. I think he hasn’t been a grown-up long enough to be President. I’d still vote for Cruz if the election were today.

    Making lots of money and being a good President are not supported by the same notions…

    • “I believe he’s a changing man.”

      100% agree.

      Earlier, it was for shlts ‘n’ grins.

      He now believes he has a solid chance of pulling this off.

      He’ll change more. But if it’s a choice of him or an anti, I won’t vote for the anti.

      • Yet he hasn’t appeared to show the capacity to be able to LEARN anything.
        Has he demonstrated that he has a better grasp on any topic?
        He continues to say he doesn’t have to know anything because he’ll hire great people but yet he apparently hasn’t even bothered to do that.

        • “Yet he hasn’t appeared to show the capacity to be able to LEARN anything.”

          YET. Let’s see how it develops.

          He’s being a bit less bombastic (but that can evaporate easily enough…).

          It’s still 14 months out.

          I’m not 100% Trump. I can live with a few of the other contenders, if they’re electable.

        • What, exactly, does he need to learn?

          Are you going to tell me that Bush Jr. was a genius of statecraft, or that Obama has learned anything of actual import since he learned to roll a joint?

    • As far as making lots of money goes, actually… I wonder what happens when President Trump runs the country into the ground financially, and then finds out that he can’t just declare bankruptcy and start from scratch with a new fresh country.

      Then again, it would be supreme irony if this actually happened under a (nominally) Republican president.

  14. I support Ted Cruz, I will never forget how he defended our right to own semi automatic rifles and standard 20 and 30 round capacity magazines after Sandy Hook. I will never forget the way he put Diane Feinstein in her place and schooled her on the Constitution. With that said I love Donald Trumps postion on the 2nd Amendment, the man gets it!

  15. He’s got my vote. As long as the choice is him or Hillary. Or Bernie. Or Joe. Or Lincoln. Or Martin or Mark or whatever his name is. Or anyone else with a (D) next to his or her name. Just about anyone else gets my vote over Trump though.

  16. “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.” – Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000 (via ontheissues.org)

    Granted, that was 15 years ago, but I don’t buy it when a politician suddenly has an epiphany when they think they’ve got a clear shot at a higher office. Sorry, not buying it.

    • OTOH, I would contend that absolutely anyone holding those beliefs could have their minds changed by most any of the posters here, if they would only listen with an open mind. I suspect Trump is willing to listen to his sons, who know better. Saying someone who holds those nitwit positions can never learn better, is a counterproductive stance.

  17. I’m reading a lot of comments by people who think Trump is speaking platitudes, but what other candidates have Concealed Carry permits and carry?!

    He might say dumb things in other areas, but he wants you to have a gun and be able to carry it anywhere. And he did say he wants national reciprocity for carry permits. CA and NY will have to suck it!

    • IMHO I’m not sure being legal to carry in NYC is a bonus for advocates of the 2A. Unless you want a president who knows who’s palms to grease.

      • He should have mentioned the stupid laws in NYC and stated that the only reason he could get a license was an army of lawyers working for him and unlimited funding. Just saying he had a license sounded tone-deaf to me, like “doesn’t everybody?”

    • Jim Webb has his VA carry permit. Didn’t have to pay off someone to get it like Trump did in NY. Think the most a city/county can charge is $60 for a 5 year permit.

      How many have ever used a firearm to kill an enemy? Who else that is running is a combat veteran?

      Let’s see Graham is reserve USAF JAG officer, Think that covers those who have served.

      • Isn’t Webb an ex-governor, or senator, or something from VA? And you are bragging he didn’t have to bribe somebody like Trump? Shouldn’t you wake up a bit? If Trump was a long-time political hack h would also have a license without what you are calling favoritism. I bet Webb could get a NYC license in less time than it took Trump, and every VA cop doesn’t even need one. The big point is that Trump sees the need for a CCL even though he can afford all the armed guards he wants.

  18. IF, and that’s a big IF. It comes down to Trump or hildabeast or Bernie I’m voting Trump. Is he the best man for the job? No.

    But if he’s the only man next to hildabeast or bernie, he gets my vote. If Cruz and Paul and whoever else gets left in the dust by Trump, then they weren’t the best man for the job.

    • Our system doesn’t select the “best man for the job”. It selects the person who panders the most to a disengaged, misled, and misinformed public.

      • Bingo…
        In terms of academic achievement, Obama and Slick Bill were among top presidents…so clearly being a good president is more than just book smarts. But, in our modern age, being good on TV is the key to elction, regardless of brains or policy proposals. Look at the national constituentcy – not pretty. Thus Trump leading.

        • Where is there any evidence of Obama’s academic achievements? Last I knew, his transcripts have never been released.

          Academic achievement doesn’t mean jack. Seriously. One of our worst presidents was an Ivy League scholar. Go look at the actual record of Woodrow Freakin’ Wilson. He was everything that people complain about with FDR – only worse. Wilson helped bring about WWII, with his idiotic meddling in world affairs and his “League of Nations” nonsense. He closed the New York stock market for over four months at the outbreak of WWI – on nothing more than executive diktat.

  19. I don’t mind Trump, I think he would be an “OK” president. But I don’t think he will win the ticket. I think he will continue to do good for another month or two, and then will begin is slow and gradual decline.
    I’m hoping for Marco Rubio, and I would love it if he chose Rand Paul for his VP.
    I think we have a bunch of good candidates running…minus Jeb Bush of course (and Huckabee & Christie).

    • Rubio is the sleeper. He performed very well in the debate; didn’t disappear, but didn’t stick his head out far enough to get it loped off. Smart strategy at this stage.

    • A lot of political pundits a good deal smarter and better informed than you or me, predicted as soon as he entered that he was going absolutely nowhere, ever, had no chance. They seem to have all been really, really wrong.

    • Rubio, Rubio, where forth art thou Rubio? I’ll tell tell you where that overgrown busboy is, hanging out with Suck Schumer and Douche Durban working on another Gang of Eight Bill selling us out and giving illegal aliens invaders amnesty THAT’s where he is

  20. It comes down to 1 thing, do you want a conservative or a liberal choosing our next 1-3 Supreme Court justices? I think trump is an ass, but it would vote for him over any liberal candidate… Obama won being the “not Bush” if Hillary would have won the nomination she would have won being the “not Bush”… If Gumby ran in 2008, same difference…. This election needs to be the “not Obama” election. … Vote a republican in, or face a Supreme Court that will rewrite the constitution one line at a time.

    • This is perhaps the most important point of this entire election. Since it now seems that the Supreme Court can legislate from the bench based on political agenda, the next two justices could entirely control the direction of this country with impunity unless something changes. It is surprising that few seem concerned that this court has effectively rendered the Constitution very nearly irrelevant.

  21. Sounds good on paper. Cruz is my choice but I don’t think it’ll happen. No I don’t trust the Donald but I’d take him over any dumbocrat(or I-socialist/communist). At least a billionaire wouldn’t be in it for the $ like Barry,slick Willy/hildebeast/al gore…

  22. You do realize, like every politician in the history of politicians, that whatever they say to get elected…is just that. No matter if a Republican is elected, no matter which one, the debt will continue on upward as will the number of laws telling you what, when, where, why and how. You may as well vote Democrat, or not at all. When you think about it, your vote counted for naught the last two times if you vote bible thumper. I was actually hoping for a Clinton/Bush ticket, but I think Biden has a chance, because in a choice between creationists and statists, the quicker it burns the better.

  23. Donny, can you do something about the full automatic thing please? Those of us who want them should be able to get them at a reasonable price, and not the inflated price the law created.
    Thank you!

    • “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”

      I think this document was carefully phrased to include people with our views, but I don’t think he’d actually push to reopen the registry of machine guns as President, which would infuriate Democrats. However, I’m pretty dang pleased with this document. Right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental human right, national concealed carry reciprocity, the purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense (thereby protecting weapons suited for fighting, combat, and war). For a mainstream Republican, not someone from the conservative or libertarian wing like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, it’s exciting to hear. Although I’d still much rather have Rand (or Ron) Paul as President.

    • I doubt I will in the general election either. I vote for who I think will be the best President (I’m in a solidly blue state). But I vote in the primary, which is not a given, and that’s where I get to help pick the next President. Heck, I’m a registered Democrat just so I can vote in the primaries, although I avoid voting Democrat in general elections (as everyone who gets elected around here is a Democrat, the primary is where the election really happens).

      So by all means, if you don’t live in a swing state I encourage you to vote third-party if you believe their candidate is superior. But you should still vote in the primary and keep a damp rag like Jeb Bush from becoming the nominee. If I lived in a solidly red state I’d register as a Republican and definitely vote for Rand Paul in the primary, and then vote third-party if I thought they had a better candidate.

      • Definitely. At its core, all politics are local. Everything starts right where you live, in your district, and shit rolls uphill from there before it rolls back downhill in November.

  24. It is easy to say something VERY reasonable OR completely nuts if you are NOT going to be President. I do not think these are sincere statements — nor do I think we are listening to a sincere person. I think this a career move, a publicity move, an image remake move — whatever. Trump is NOT “self-made” (my dad knew his VERY rich dad Fred Trump) he is NOT a successful businessman — but a serial failure. His net worth is probably MINUS $500B. The only reason he has not gone from Park Ave to Park Bench is that he has made himself a celeb, made money in media (not RE) and kept his face and voice in front of the public for years. He looks like he has “guts” for saying what others won’t (and saying what people are thinking) sort of like an inverse Bernie — who also won’t be President. If the GOP cannot get Emperor Bush III into the White House — there will be another spook from nowhere (like Obama — and I DO NOT MEAN “SPOOK” RACIALLY) and an insider VP. Like front-man George W and real strongman Cheney. Or front-man Ronald Reagan and strongman and LONG TIME SPOOK George HW Bush — one of the most important puppet-masters of the modern era. (feel free to start flaming me now about Reagan) One way or the other we get DADDY WARBUCKS. Enjoy the puppet show — I prefer Punch & Judy. BTW: Look for this next term as the term that the GOP throws gun owners under the bus on the grounds of “terrorism”. The Oligarchs are not happy about well armed civilians — and they OWN both parties. Discuss…

    • I never really thought Trump was a serious candidate, I thought from the beginning that it was an ego trip for him, and when he promised not to run as an independent, I knew for sure. That promise is his ejector seat. When he starts to slide in the polls, he can bow out and say, “I made a promise not to run if I didn’t get the nomination”, instead of having to back up his loud mouth by wasting a huge amount of money running a certain-to-lose independent campaign. Right now, he’s getting more attention than he’s ever gotten in his life, for very little cost. He’ll eat that up until people get tired of his schtick and stop letting him slide by on snide insults and empty platitudes. Then he’ll bail out.

  25. Read that bit about background checks again. It sounds to me like he’s admitting that the concept of background checks is flawed – “very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check” – and then says the problem is that the background check records are incomplete – “too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system”. Then he closes with “we need to fix the existing system”. You mean, the system you said criminals completely circumvent anyway? What difference will it make if states submit the records, if the criminals aren’t going through the background check process in the first place?

  26. The main thing with Trump is that he keeps getting his republican opponents to go full democrat on him whenever he makes an offensive statement. It demonstrates to the angry tea party base that the rest of the field is whipped into liberal orthodoxy, and if they are just going to adopt the PC language of failure and play by liberal rules rather than confronting it what good will they be in an election? Nobody seems to get that Trumps numbers are a direct insult to the establishment, which can only respond the way it’s liberal abusers have trained it to; apoligize for being racists/sexists/homophobes/xenophobes, and stick their noses in a corner to think about what they’ve done. Also, does no one remember that Reagan was a Hollywood liberal who supported gun control? At least Trump is making a promise to uphold 2a, Ronnie never would.

    • Right. Trump is doing two things:

      1. Promising to shut off the spigot of illegal immigration. If a Democrat gets in and gives amnesty to 30 million illegals you can kiss your gun rights goodbye.

      2. Smashing the PC police. I’m sick and tired of the Republicans accepting the leftist frame. They act pathetic. I want to grab them, shake them, and slap them like Brando does to that crybaby in The Godfather. “ACT LIKE A MAN!”

      I’m very glad that he released this policy paper because I was wondering where he stood on the second.

  27. Nice to see Trump has renounced his anti gun positions from the late 90s when he supported the Clinton AWB. Everything in his press release is acceptable. However, unlike Ted Cruz, Trump is a jonny come lately Republican. He spent most of his life as a Democrat, supporting the likes of Pelosi and Reid.

    Give me a real take no prisoners, call it like it is Conservative. Ted Cruz. If he can get past the scummy RINOs in the primary Ted will wipe the floor with Hillary in the election.

  28. I will vote for Trump, if he gets the nomination, before I would ever vote for Hilary, Bernie or Obama’s Third Term Proxy Biden, or not vote at all. If what his statement reads is “platitudes”, he got them from us POTG. Yes, I would prefer he also included abolishing “:Gun-Free Zones”, AND I would wish he was advocating, repealing NFA 1934, at least. We can educate Trump further, if he wins, so there’s potential here.

    I posted the following as a Reply, and restate it now for general consideration:
    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a “Natural” Right. It existed before the Constitution existed (aka the formal State) and it exists despite ANY Constitution for any Nation or sub State. It is one of those “unalienable” Rights that “all men” (aka every person on the Planet) is endowed with. It is the supreme Right to protect and defend one’s own Life against any threat. It is not limited to “Tyrannical Governments” because they are artifices created by people to organize their Societies. If there were no “Governments” or “Societies”, every person would still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    We must never forget this because it defines the very core of our contention that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    I believe Trump’s Statement is in keeping with my fundamental beliefs, as stated above.

  29. Big hat, no steer.

    While it doesn’t always seems like it, trump chooses his words very carefully. He knows who to pander to the American people.

    I wouldn’t believe a thing he says about protecting the right to own and bear arms.

  30. HE is a liar. And when the winds change (and they will) he’ll throw us under the bus so fast….. I will not vote for him in any election.

  31. If you do not vote in the upcoming Presidential Election, you are, in fact, voting for the Alinskyites who want to destroy the American Republic. Do the math. Abstaining from voting gives a vote to your worst case opponent (Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Warren). This is what happened in 2012, when pissed-off Conservatives and Libertarians did not vote for Mitt Romney because he did not exactly fit their “beau ideal” of what the Republican Nominee “should have been”. Result: another four years of Barak Obama’s lawless, arrogance. Unintended consequences: Encouragement to the Socialist Progressives that they were/are “unbeatable”, thousands of unwanted immigrants, seven more years of a sluggish economy that does not produce living wage jobs, Benghazi scandal unresolved, a Justice Department that allows deported, illegal aliens to murder Americans and classifies drug dealers and other criminals as ‘non-violent’ and lets them go free, further erosion of the Middle Class, $18.3 TRILLION in National Debt, $97 TRILLION in Unfunded Debt, the Iran Nuclear “Deal” and a collapsed American Foreign Policy…the list could go on and on.
    Glen Beck is arguing [and I believe he is correct] that America is at a “tipping point” where each of us must decide if we are going to preserve America and what made it the greatest Country the world has ever known, or let it slide into European Socialist Style chaos and collapse. Another 4-8 years of Democrats holding the Executive Branch (and controlling all its crucial Departments and resources) will be a disaster. So, if you have to, just this one time, hold your nose and vote against the Democratic Socialists, no matter who the Republicans Nominate because we, the People, have to stop the bleeding before we can actually save the Republic. The choice is simple and it is no time to be haughty and arrogant. If we allow the Democrats to hold the White House again, there will be nothing further to be done except launch a violent and bloody Civil War or surrender to the Socialists.
    This is what Donald Trump sees and this is why he is running for President. I do not endorse him, but I accept him as the better alternative to ANY Democrat running, and certainly there are other Republican Candidates who would be much better alternatives. One of the Republican Candidates, I believe Dr. Ben Carson, pointed out that the U.S. produced more progress for all Humanity in just over two hundred years than all the rest of the World combined. That may be a slight overstatement, but not by much.

    In 2012, 94 Million Americans did not Vote. Obama is estimated to have got 64 million Votes and Romney 58 Million. I repeat, DO THE MATH. Do not let AMERICA fade from the World by not voting this time!

    • Yes, DerryM, I agree 100%. Marxists/socialists/communists count on “pure” conservatives to only vote for someone who shares most, if not all of their political and moral beliefs. And when that pure-enough candidate isn’t offered on the ballot on election day, they stay home. Hence, millions of stay at home “pure” conservatives helping the opposition retain power. Each stay at home pure ones’ giving one more vote for the totally un-pure commie – exactly how the liar-in-chief won his second term.

      Unfortunately, the perfect candidate rarely exists, and when they do exist (like Ted Cruz) they don’t have any chance of beating the democrats.

        • I’m mixed – Ted Cruz is by far the most electable conservative, but America is way too far down the socialist trail to make a hard right turn. Too many pop-culture morons are afraid of religion, morality and ethics … the same crowd that Mitt Romney couldn’t win over.

          Trump draws votes from the pop-culture idiots, big time. I’d prefer to take my chances on Trump …. not even sure he can beat the democrat machine. For once, conservatives need to get behind the best chance to beat a commie, and not the purest conservative. Far too many conservatives get disgusted, stay home on election day, and fail to cancel out a democrat vote.

        • The thing that you’re missing is that when Democrats lose in the general elections, it’s usually because of low voter turnout among their electorate (Republican base is less apathetic and more likely to vote even in the best of days; generally speaking, whites vote more than non-whites, and rich vote more than poor). And Trump’s boastful populism has one neat side effect aside from propping him up in the GOP primaries: it also makes it that much easier to rally the Democratic voters on an anti-Trump platform. Right now this mainly translates to his dismally low approval ratings among Latinos, and low ratings among Blacks and women. But come 2016, it will also translate to turnout if he is the Republican candidate.

        • All good points. I have mixed feelings as well. I think you are right that Trump has tapped into the Popular Culture where other Candidates, like Cruz, are not. We are too far down the road to Socialism, but if we are going full Socialist I don’t want it to be with 43.5% of Registered Voters not voting in 2016, as in 2012.

        • You are correct. The Democrats are taking us to hell in a hand-basket. Perhaps there is nothing we could do to stop them. Let’s suppose this is true. And, let’s further suppose that less than a simple majority are called-upon to restore the Constitution. Horrible thought, but let’s face it, that’s why the Founding Fathers gave us the 2A. So, we really ought to game this out.

          Those who didn’t vote in the last 2 elections promise to be there on the ramparts on the day of need. If they couldn’t summon the political will to go to the polls on election day we are assured they will not find some excuse to fail to muster on Revolution II day?

          On that day we should expect that those wishing to restore the Constitution will be only 1/3 of the population. A second 1/3 will be indifferent as to whether the Constitution is restored or not. And, 1/3 will be in favor of the new regime where a simple majority of voters rules the 2/3 of non-voters and opposing voters.

          Where will be the legitimacy of the 1/3 trying to restore the Constitution? Where were these 1/3 when the polls were still open to them? They said that voting was futile; well, those that did vote voted themselves a massive national debt, soaring interest rates, nationalized industries and – for the masses – bread and circuses. Who will have claim to legitimacy?

          – those who provide the bread and circuses?
          – those who want to restore the Ancient Regime?

          Elections matter. Their outcomes deliver legitimacy to the victors. Obama won his first election; and, then, won re-election. He was first supported by loyal Democrat majorities in both chambers; then a split Congress; and now even a Republican majority in both chambers! Imagine that, Obama is supported by a “loyal opposition”. And, of course, he controls the Supreme Court.

          Now, imagine a militia – comprised of just 1/3 of the People – trying to seize the flag of legitimacy in the face of these elected officials? 4th Generation Warfare presupposes that the principal war is for recognition of legitimacy. How could conservatives and libertarians imagine willing the war for legitimacy if they can’t bring themselves to vote?

        • @MarkPA – The scenario you describe and the questions you pose comprise what worries me deeply about the prospect of an armed rebellion. Particularly the question about legitimacy. I have argued in other posts that, given the current situation in the U.S., an armed rebellion is probably unworkable. That may turn on who the Military supports, which opens a host of other questions and “What-if’s?”.

          This is why “Elections matter”. They absolutely do exactly because they endow the outcome with legitimacy. The Election upcoming in 2016 more than matters. It is crucial to the direction the Country will take, possibly permanently. I have thought for over a year now (and was gratified when I found-out Glen Beck is now saying the same) that we are at a “tipping point” and each of us must decide what we want the future of America to be and act to make our decision happen at the ballot box in 2016.

          The disciples of Saul Alinsky recognized that their Marxist-inspired takeover of the U.S. could not be done from the grass-roots up, as Alinsky thought, but through Politics down by taking control from within. They are not certain who the Military would support and that is all that’s holding them back, along with the specter of tens of millions of Armed, pissed-off Citizens. This is why the Left is so relentless about disarming the populous in the name of “public safety”. I have not figured-out how they intend to bind the Military to them, as yet, but I think it has to do with continuing an “appearance” of legitimacy and not doing anything directly that would cause the Military to turn on them.

          The Alinskyites have gotten very close and, I think, the 2016 Election is where we must stop them before they figure-out how to resolve those roadblocks and succeed wrapped in a cloak of legitimacy.

        • Good perspective on legitimacy and how it relates to the actions (or inactions) of the military … hadn’t considered that when envisioning the political environment after the SHTF. Instead, I always considered the fact that typical liberal democrats do not have the balls to die to institute their own control freak agenda over others. They want to enlist the sons and daughters of Americans (& possibly foreigners) to die on their behalf in the name of protecting “freedom” and assuring “equality” following martial law and the suspension of Constitutional protections.

          Considering the fact the current inside the beltway regime combined with leftist education allies and the mainstream media label anyone who is even aware of the original intent of the Constitution a domestic “terrorist” …. we have clear insight on how the gov’t/media complex will demonize anyone willing to jeopardize their own lives and personal freedoms for the “crimes” of providing an active defense against the true enemies of the Constitution.

        • Honestly, I owe the remarks about “legitimacy” to MarkPA. I had thought briefly about legitimacy should armed conflict arise, but MarkPA focused on it very sharply. It is key to the overall Strategy of the Alinskyites and why they have carefully and patiently worked all these years to gain power in Government, Education [particularly University/College levels], Unions, the Federal Bureaucracy, News Media and Entertainment Industries. They are controlling and spreading the message that America is bad and must be made “more equalitarian” by the Government.

          As long as the Alinskyites maintain the facade of legitimacy, they keep the Military under their control {aka not rebelling} and a large number of the People fooled into not suspecting what they are doing. Yes, the far Left expects someone else to fight and die for their agenda, but won’t do anything egregious enough to give the Military cause to turn against them. In the meanwhile the Right keeps factionalizing and in-fighting, which is exactly what the Alinskyites want. “United We Win. Divided They Fall.”

        • You are very kind to mention your appreciation for my prior remarks.

          I harbor a deep-seated fear that I’m not nearly as clever as I need to be to survive. I politics, especially so.

          To DIS-courage voter turn-out is a key objective of BOTH parties. Imagine the electorate were divided into 3 groups: 33% Democrats; 34% non-voters; and, 33% Republicans. Whichever party manages to flip just 1% to their camp taxes all voters and divides the spoils-of-political-victory among their 1/3. Better still, 13% Democrats, 74% non-voters; 13% Republicans.The spoils need be shared by just 1/8th. The NON-voter is the most beloved by BOTH parties. Can we be more clever than to play into their hands?

          Disgruntled Republicans/Libertarians/Independents were so disgusted by McCain and Romney that they stayed home. Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan to SCOTUS. Could McCain/Romney have chosen worse jurists to deny our rights? Could these Republicans have made worse decisions regarding the Middle-East; illegal immigration, etc.? The power concentrated in the Oval Office is so great that I see no alternative to the Lesser-of-2-Evils as a voting principle.

          The greater problem, IMO, is with Congress. Collectively, this branch has far more power – to stop evil or promote good – than either the Executive or Judicial. And, it has become even more corrupted than either of the other two branches. Who is to be held accountable for this corruption? It is WE, their respective constituents. We let them do as they like; and then we RE-ELECT them to continue to do so! Why?

          One reason is a lack of transparency. Congress has had two centuries of practice in log-rolling to ensure that we never quite know what our 2 Senators or Representative is doing. We suspect each is up-to-no-good, but we can’t quite pin him down on each issue that is important to us. Accordingly, we default to voting by party; even though we suspect our party’s candidate is a RINO.

          Another is simple pork-barrel-politics. Once a member of Congress gains seniority he has the power to bring home the bacon. All other things being equal, we are tempted to vote for that guy who has the name-recognition and who is identified with Federal pork in our State/District. This phenomena tends to make members of Congress nearly invulnerable to opposition in the primary as well as in the general election.

          Congressional corruption is, IMO, rooted in the seniority system; a system that we need to break. A Constitutional amendment imposing term limits could do that. In the interim, we need a Do-it-Yourself approach to term limits and leadership turnover. “Leadership” should mean what it says; it should NOT mean “control”. Today, it means control.

          First term members of Congress are called “freshmen”. Let’s call 2’nd term members sophomores; 3’rd term members juniors and those with 4 terms or more “seniors”. I propose a movement to DENY seniors leadership positions. They may earn recognition as elder statesmen, but NOT CONTROL committee assignments or caucus strategy. Our movement ought to demand a pledge from each candidate that he will NOT vote for a senior to lead his chamber’s caucus. He may vote for a junior to serve as a leader for one term; but no more. Better to support qualified candidates for leadership among sophomores who may serve a second leadership term as juniors (before becoming disqualified in their 4th term in Congress).

          The “No Seniors” pledge would not deny Boehner’s re-election from his District nor McConnell from his State. Instead, it would threaten each freshman and sophomore from re-election for failing to adhere to his pledge. Facing such a threat, these freshmen and sophomores would be free to coalesce around a non-senior contender for leadership positions.

          The “2-party” system in Congress has ceased to function. We must consider a “nuclear option”; i.e.:
          – voting for the GREATER of 2 Evils; and,
          – turn-over for the sake of turn-over.
          While the leadership of each caucus is able to defy the will of their constituents they are on a very long leash. What that leadership cherishes above all-else is MAJORITY control of its respective chamber. When the Democrats control a chamber they will hold it at all costs; same for the Republicans. All power accrues to the Speaker in the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Typically, just a few seats separate the majority from the minority; e.g., when the Senate is controlled by a 55/45 split, a loss of 6 seats switches control to the other party: 49/51. Threaten the Senate Majority leader with the loss of 6 seats out of 9 in the forthcoming election is to threaten the majority party in that chamber with a loss of control.

          Supposing – for illustration – that we are inclined to vote Republican, we need to summon the courage to threaten 9 suspected RINO Republican Senate candidates with the loss of our votes to their Democrat opponents. We need to defend loyal conservative/libertarian Republicans but we ought to feel free to threaten every suspect.

          The Democrats are taking the nation to hell-in-a-handbasket. A vote for the GREATER-of-2-Evils represents a willingness to push the peddle-to-the-metal and get to their intended destination more quickly. Perhaps approaching the precipice rapidly would wake-up the electorate to what our government is doing. That wake-up call vs. slow suffocation by a protracted burying of the nation in debt and loss of liberty.

          As we approach the precipice, who do we want in the driver’s seat? Do we want the Democrats to be clearly-in-charge and blameworthy? Or, do we want the party that might turn-us-around tainted with the black brush of shared culpability? I argue that if the RINOs will not turn-away from the Democrats’ destination we need to empty the Republican Party of its corrupt members to make way for conservatives or libertarians to replace them.

          (I invite Democrat voters to apply the same techniques to reform their party.)

          Absent any clear indication of policy or inclination, I advocate for voting-out the incumbent. The incumbent Republican on the ballot this election is either:
          – a conservative or libertarian deserving of my continued support;
          – a RINO whose role is merely to support the Republican RINO leadership; or,
          – of uncertain stripes.
          In the third case, I should DENY him the benefit of the doubt. If he is NOT CLEARLY supportive of conservative/libertarian principles than better to rebuke him as a signal to others.

          It is said that just 3% of men actively served in the field for the cause of the Revolution. We forget that these 3% were served by another 30% who remained home supplying provisions to those in the field. Their daughters rolled cartridges and their wives hauled water. Legitimacy of their cause was NOT established by 3%; rather, it was manifested by 33%. Legitimacy coalesced in the taverns and village squares and manifested in elections to colonial committees and congresses.

          Our bars, internet boards and elections are today’s equivalents. In these venues we gather to consolidate our messages on issues where we can achieve a consensus; or not. The outcomes of elections are the dispositive manifestation of legitimacy. The public will recognize – as legitimate – the decisions of those who take the trouble to vote. What outcome smacks of legitimacy?

          Loyalists Non-voters Opponents
          ———– ————— —————
          34% – – – – – – – 63% – – – – – – 3%
          33% – – – – – – – 33% – – – – – 34%

          In the first case, 3% will continue to vote from the rooftops. In the second case, they will be provisioned by wives hauling water to the rooftops and daughters operating the progressive reloading machines. Albeit a minority in each case, which has more legitimacy?

        • My take on this is that if you want to break the lock-in of the two party system, you need to do one thing: loudly and visibly support any candidate that has specific promises of electoral reforms that would dismantle that system, and whom you believe to be sincere about it (most third party candidates are generally there). If there’s more than one option, support the most popular one to maximize winning chances. Ignore all other policy positions that they might have. The point here is to get someone in a position to change the system such that for the follow-up electoral cycles you can actually vote your conscience without fretting over “wasted votes”, and there’s only so much damage that can be done in 4 years otherwise.

        • The road to hell is paved with good consciences.

          Clearly, voting for a 3rd party candidate who could win is worth-while. Conversely, voting for a 3rd party candidate who can’t win is a wasted vote. There are rare opportunities where: the Democrat is expected to win; the RINO is expected to lose; a Libertarian (etc.) is also running. Go ahead, with a clear conscience, vote for the Libertarian. However, if your vote for the Libertarian is most likely to serve the RINO, then what are you accomplishing?

          Who is our most potent ally in the fight against the RINOs? Isn’t it the Democrat candidate? He has a good chance of winning in many (not all) races. Even if he can’t win he can exhaust the RINO’s treasury.

          Our second most potent ally is a conservative/libertarian contender for the Republican nomination. Every dollar the RINO spends to defend his seat in the nomination campaign is a dollar he doesn’t have to defend his seat against the Democrat.

          Whatever an office holder votes for is hard to keep track of. Dozens, even hundreds or thousands of decisions are rolled-up in a single bill. How did Congressman X vote on any one of those issues is impossible to tell. He voted with the party leadership or he voted against it. It’s hard to hold any legislator to a litmus test on any one issue or subject.

          So long as votes for leadership positions in a caucus are public, it’s easy to tell whether a legislator supports the establishment leadership or supports change. This is why I advocate the “No Seniors in Leadership” pledge. We can hold our individual legislators’ feet to the fire on breaking the back of the seniority system.

          It’s also why I advocate voting Republicans out-of-office if the Republicans don’t accomplish anything. Take, for example, my (PA) Senator Toomey. He has an A+ NRA rating and strong conservative ratings elsewhere. And, what has he actually accomplished for gun rights? Nothing anyone can identify outside of the NRA. What has he done to accomplish reform in the Senate Republican caucus? Nothing that I can see.

          Toomey can be beat by his Democrat opponent in PA. That reduces the Republican majority in the Senate; maybe with a few more losses the Republicans will lose their majority. To quote an infamous Secretary of State: “At this point, what difference would it make?” Why should the Republican party elite consider the wishes of Republican voters so long as we regard them as the lesser-of-2-evils?

          If you want to influence the Republican leadership; deny them their power as majority leaders.

        • >> Conversely, voting for a 3rd party candidate who can’t win is a wasted vote. There are rare opportunities where: the Democrat is expected to win; the RINO is expected to lose; a Libertarian (etc.) is also running. Go ahead, with a clear conscience, vote for the Libertarian. However, if your vote for the Libertarian is most likely to serve the RINO, then what are you accomplishing?

          Thing is, a third-party candidate will never win so long as people vote “strategically” in a system optimized for two parties (which is inherent in FPTP). Convincing people to not vote “strategically” is a very hard challenge, and is nearly impossible to do on the overall policy basis – there are too many wedge issues, and people will rightly retort that they will vote for whoever is necessary to avoid the “bad guy” (the more conscious would rather say the “worse guy”) from winning this time round… and next time round… and next time.

          On the other hand, convincing people to not vote “strategically” over a single issue that is non-partisan in nature, and that is inherently about fixing that whole conundrum, is much easier. It’s the promise of having to do this once so that you never need to do it ever again.

          From that perspective, a third party vote makes sense because even if it doesn’t win anything tangible in the current round, it adds a vote to an accumulated mass that only needs to break through the barrier once to stop the cycle. Basically, as soon as a reform-enabling candidate passes and enacts those reforms, we can all go back to voting for the “good guys” against the “bad guys” and slinging feces at each other; the difference would be that they would actually be good guys and bad guys (from each person’s subjective perspective, naturally), as opposed to bad guys and worse guys.

        • “Thing is, a third-party candidate will never win so long as people vote “strategically” in a system optimized for two parties (which is inherent in FPTP).”

          Each of us is entitled to his own arm-chair strategy for political success. I claim only that MY arm-chair is stuffed more fully than that in anyone else’s living room.

          The record of 3’rd party insurgencies in America is not great. Maybe that of the Republicans who emerged as the Whigs fell apart. Otherwise, we have Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and the Libertarians who seem to not have gained much more traction than the Socialists and Communists before them. By all means, I encourage you to advocate what is closest to your heart; however, each of us has to remember that we anti-Progressives are a diverse lot. We find it really hard to coalesce around any one leader whom we see as much too far from perfection-in-our-own-eye.

          I propose that it will be easier and faster to re-make the Republican Party into an effective caucus for Constitutionalism than it would be to form a new party. (By the same token, it would be easier for the poor and minorities to re-make the Democrat Party into an effective caucus to advance: educational opportunities;reform welfare into work-fare; and promote economic development necessary for entry-level jobs as compared to creating a new party.)

          The Republican elite is vulnerable. Witness: Trump; Dr. Carson; Fiorina; and to a lesser extent, Cruz. There are a few issues around which I think we can coalesce. One of these is term limits. This is, as had been said, “A bad idea whose time has come.” Do we believe that my assertion, here, is true?

          Suppose that it is true, merely for the sake of illustrating my idea of breaking the Republican elite. Very well, then, can we agree across a broad swath of voters inclined to vote for Republican candidates that we will D-I-Y? That is, we will demand that the candidates we vote for and support financially “Take the pledge!” I.e., they will NOT vote for leaders in their Congressional caucus who are “seniors” (i.e., serving their 4th term of office)? Will we hold them to this pledge?

          Can we count their votes for leaders? So long as it is the caucus rule that each member’s vote for each leadership position is recorded and published, then we can tell who broke his pledge. If the caucus changes its rules to a secret ballot then we must agree to vote against all Republicans in the next election. Can we make this work? Our answer depends upon whether we as a caucus of anti-Progressives can coalesce around any one tactic for a few biannual election cycles. Is this tactic one that admits of coalescence?

          Underpinning any tactic is a willingness to execute. An infantry officer friend explained to me that a counter-attack strategy for dealing with an ambush along a trail is to charge the enemy firing from the side of the trail. Gutsy; but, it’s the only tactic that works. Can we anti-Progressives grit our teeth and vote for the GREATER of 2 Evils to force our will upon the Republican elite?

          Admittedly, we anti-Progressvies might not have the guts. If we do NOT have the guts to vote for the Democrat opponent of a RINO then will we have the guts to pursue any other tactic? E.g., will we continue to vote for whatever 3’rd party candidate election after election?

          To sustain a gutsy offensive tactic I think that the tactic must manifest evidence of success early. Suppose some hypothetical State, the State of Confusion, where anti-Progressives can coalesce around a tactic. Can they consistently defeat one – or a few – Republican Congressmen? If so, can they defeat their next Republican Senator? Should they succeed, then they will be encouraged to clean up the remainder of their Congressional delegation and their other Senator when his term of office ends. Neighboring States’ anti-Progressives will follow suite. In 2 to 3 biannual elections the pattern could be established and the Republican elite will be obliged to take anti-Progressives into account.

          Bear in mind that the Republican elite care ONLY about POWER; they don’t really care about issues. I think that the power-to-spend money to benefit donors is more important than the power-to-pass laws that regulate behavior. Consider, for example, ObamaCare. What influence do we suppose health-insurance companies, unions, medical-device manufacturers, pharma had on shaping the law? What influence do we suppose the votes of the poor and minorities had? The sources of influence were legion; the intensity of certain of these influences tipped the vote.

          Let’s now consider gun-laws; say, National Reciprocity. Would passage of this law divert Federal pork to a different donor class? This NR law doesn’t require any shift in Federal pork from any existing donor to different recipients; it’s “free”. This NR law may cut-off donations from Bloomberg or Joyce Foundation; but that’s not a lot of money for any particular Congress-critter. Gun voters are more apt to be single-issue-voters; gun-control sympathizers are apt to have diffuse interests and are less likely to punish a Congress-critter for a gun-vote.

          The Republican elite needs to think about whether they have more to lose by giving anti-Progressives some laws that we demand (usually repeals of existing laws) or more to lose by finding themselves OUT-of-power. Given the threat from an iron-fist at the ballot box they may be easily persuaded to run anti-Progressive nominees.

          I really don’t see another tactic that is apt to lead to a strategic outcome. How do we coalesce around either people or policies? It is rare for an individual to really rally a constituency around his personality. Reagan was such a rare candidate. It’s a difficult problem to find such a personality to support for President or governor. How will we do so in 50 States for Senate seats and 350 Congressional districts? Even if we have some success, our desired personality goes to Washington alone and becomes vulnerable to the corrupting forces of his leadership. Worse still is the prospect of finding key policies. Abortion; marriage; guns; pot; welfare; war; . . . Voters of good will coming from all sectors of political thought are of diverse opinions. To illustrate, look at pot. Inner-city minority voters see the scourge of drugs in their community and align with conservatives to maintain the war-on-drugs. Is there ANY single policy around which anti-Progressives could reasonably be expected to coalesce?

          Let’s suppose we find one. For illustration, let’s pick repeal of the methanol mandate. We all agree now – let us suppose. How do we punish those Congress-critters who vote to sustain methanol? The methanol repeal will be buried in a bill that will be defeated no-matter-what and all our anti-Progressive Congress-critters will tell us that they have done their best to pass methanol repeal but were defeated. Congress has discovered every available device to disguise its members’ votes so that we can’t quite pin them down on any particular issue.

          Above all, we must find a tactic that we can both:
          – coalesce around – that admits of achieving a consensus; AND,
          – we can enforce by a public measure.

          I think my No Seniors in Leadership tactic enforced by voting for the GREATER of 2 Evils fits these criteria. What other tactic does? Is consistently voting for any 3rd party candidate decidedly superior to not voting at all? Is political issue X decidedly better? Is charismatic candidate Y decidedly better?

          I’m open to other tactics. I’m open to other criteria for evaluating the efficacy of tactics.

        • @MarkPA, int19h and RickA – You guys are blowing my mind! Your comments are astute, thoroughly interesting and very well thought out. I give you all my most humble bow of admiration! Thank-you very much!

          Okay, enough of the nice stuff…

          I am going to have to think about, re-read and digest the comments of September 21 a bit. I have thought about Congress, but focused mostly on getting people convinced they must vote in 2016 to change-out the Executive Branch because that is the most dramatic change we can make in the near future and seems key to resolving some of the major issues we face today.

          I am definitely of the opinion that Congressional Term Limits must be imposed and that the present Congress has only “succeeded” (being generous) because of inertia, which is doing none of us any good. I was also deeply concerned by Sean Hannity’s Fox News Speciat “Boomtown: Washington D.C.” in which they explored the corruption, nepotism and excesses of our Capitol City and its inhabitants. Clips can be found at the URL below:

          http://video.foxnews.com/v/2119747570001/welcome-to-boomtown-washington-dc/?#sp=show-clips

          It is supposed to Rain here tomorrow, so t will try to post a more detailed response then…after I clean a couple of guns from earlier in the week… 😉

        • Hey DerryM don’t thank me, I’m just a Sophomore. All participants in this thread offer good insights, however MarkPA clearly holds a Doctorate in Political Science!

          Bottom line is unless a Constitutional Convention is convened and passes a new Amendment to force term limits upon our esteemed elite political class, we’re screwed. It will take more election cycles than we will ever be allowed participate in order to dump the criminals, then replace them with elected officials who will honor and respect the original intent of the Constitution.

          The Founders never envisioned American citizens would ever be dumbed down to the point voters would reelect criminals and allow them to establish a rigged system of retaining their political power for life. Elections were supposed to be the method of applying term limits for elected miscreants who violated their sworn oaths of office. And now it doesn’t work.

        • I NEVER imagined the original post I made would spark the great responses and interesting, lively and informative discussion that has come forth. Don’t underestimate your grasp of the matters at hand.

          Yes, sadly imposing Term Limits on Congress would require a Constitutional Amendment, so, no point holding our breath on that one.
          And Yes, the Founders thought people would serve one or two terms in Congress then go back to their livelihoods, usually as Farmers. They never envisioned people making a lifelong career out of being a Senator or Representative. Allegedly, The Founders did think the “ordinary folk” were ill-informed and stupid, which is why they created the Electoral College. Not entirely sure about that, but an interesting sidenote. But for certain unlimited Terms in Congress is not working now….

          Have you looked at The National Popular Vote movement?

          http://nationalpopularvote.com/

          I am not sure how this will work in the long run, but they do have 11 States with 165 Electoral College Votes committed.

    • >> Abstaining from voting gives a vote to your worst case opponent (Clinton, Sanders, Biden, Warren). This is what happened in 2012, when pissed-off Conservatives and Libertarians did not vote for Mitt Romney because he did not exactly fit their “beau ideal” of what the Republican Nominee “should have been”.

      What makes you believe that what Romney would have done as a president would have been preferable to libertarians? They’re distinct from conservatives for a reason, you know. And you’re not entitled to their vote just because both you and they are in opposition to liberals.

      • The Libertarian Party claims less than 300,000 registered Voters. They would have been statistically insignificant relative to the 90+ million who did not vote in affecting the outcome between Obama and Romney, and likely Romney wouldn’t have cared if he made them happy or not. You’re right I should not have mentioned them at all. Does that pick your nit sufficiently?

        • There are way more libertarians than there are Libertarian Party members.

          But yes, you did. Less entitlement all around.

        • I was actually completely surprised when I saw the Libertarian Party only claims “over 250,000” registered Libertarian Voters, while also claiming to be the “third largest political party”. I can accept there are far more Libertarians out there. whatever they register as and whomever the actually vote for. The only important thing is that they and the rest of the 94 million who did not vote in 2012, vote in 2016. If we are going to elect a Socialist, it cannot be with 43.5% of Registered Voters not voting.

  32. Applaud Trump for having the fortitude to speak out on the 2A. The typical candidate for office is too frightened to be forthright. A true leader does what he does. He has put his position to bed, next.

    • It’s easy to be forthright when you have absolutely nothing to lose.

      He can take this election thing as far as he wants and drop out with no notice, and it will not affect him one whit. He can change any opinion or position without any fear of alienating his voting base, as this is only a short-term gig for him; when he’s done with this, win or lose, he goes back to being a billionaire, and after doing so he won’t give a damn about who he screwed along the way.

      Sorry, I’d prefer to elect someone who has a bit more personally invested in this situation, with a long-term track record of working to protect/expand gun rights vs. a johnny-come-lately/born-again 2nd amendment advocate who used to hang with the anti-gun politicians and support their policies.

      And his position has only been put to bed for as long as needed; if he sees a need to change it, then he will, just like his position on Carly’s face.

      • So the others will not speak up for civil rights because they do have something to lose? Show me some one who is this detailed speaking out in public on the civil right of self defense?

        • Solidly pro-gun politicians let their past record speak for itself. Most politicians (even Dems) know that bringing up gun control is a losing issue; that either way, you’re going to piss off enough people that they may be able to use it as a negative rallying point, which is bad for your vote total. Many pundits and other well-informed people said gun control probably caused Al Gore to lose his home state of TN in the 2000 presidential election, and if he would have won there, he would have won the election. And with many millions more gun owners than the last few presidential elections, this one will be no different in that respect. Right now, there is only one presidential candidate who is running on a heavy gun-control position/platform (Democrat Martin O’Malley):
          http://www.ontheissues.org/Martin_O%60Malley.htm#Gun_Control
          and he is polling in the LOW single digits right now.

  33. Trump will sign reciprocity and HOPEFULLY a final fix to that disastrous “nics improvement” act that GOA warned us about, and which the nra mocked GOA for opposing, which got hundreds of thousands of vets turned into “prohibited persons.” When loud statist types talk about “mental health” we should worry WHO exactly will be added to NICS next. Enemies of the state is how it always works out.

  34. This is a core issue for me. After sandy hook, i bought everything I could afford. I’m a cruz guy but he can’t beat the machine. I think him and trump are going to team up.

    After he released his position paper, i came by some of my favorite gun sites to see the reaction. Couple things to know, trump’s kids are total gun nuts. They shoot every weekend. And are big game hunters. Trump has been speaking to nra conventions for years.

    If anything, i think he was pandering to his lib nyc audience all those years ago, hell, reagan wrote in support of awb.

    Anyway, once you see what the guy’s family is like, i have no more qualms. This policy paper could have been written by GOA. I’m very happy with this.

    Anyway, keep up great reviews. I’m still sticking with my glock 17 due to my big hands.

  35. I see nothing he want to changed on the nfa branch and repeal the gfsz on federal level “only” an force to ccw only shall issue (nothing stand about open carry) ……….

    I like Ron Paul more but the best at moment what you can get is rand paul thats my 50 cent

    best regard

  36. Trump is a salesman.
    Many a salesperson will tell you anything to close a deal. (“Sure you can use the other subdivision’s workout room.”)
    It’s legal for politicians and political groups to lie. (281 Care Comm. v. Arneson)
    If you like being lied to, support Trump. (You can tell when he’s lying. Watch his lips. If they’re moving, he’s lying.)
    He has a “for me, not thee” NYC carry permit. And I’m certain he competes in IDPA all the time. (If you believe that, go buy a $90K Escalade, which is a Tahoe with $40K extra profit for GM and rides like my ’60 F-100. Or a Lexus: Don’t let the palatial dealership make you think they’re charging you an awful lot for a Toyota with extra sound deadening and complimentary butt kissings.)
    The fact that his sons hunt doesn’t even make him a Fudd.
    We’re in a bad spot right now. Carson and Carly (and Kasich, Bush, Christie) are, at best, soft on 2A. Walker, I assert, is our best shot (no pun intended).
    To quote the philosopher Al Davis, we’re in a “Just Win, Baby” situation. The next President will appoint three SCoTUS judges. If it’s Hillary or Biden, Heller and MacDonald goes from 5-4 to 2-7.
    Reagan appointed Scalia (A), Kennedy (C-) and O’Connor (D). Bork would have be an A.
    Bush 41 appointed Thomas (A) and Souter (F).
    W appointed Alito (B) and Roberts (B).
    Ford appointed Stevens (F).
    Can Trump’s appointments be worse than Reagan, the Bushes and Ford? Maybe not. (Am I arguing against myself?)

  37. If you don’t believe people’s views on guns can radically change in a decade, how do you explain me? Or any of the millions of people who are now on our side after Sandy Hook forced the issue? Are we not welcome in the party because we were bleeding hearts in our misguided youths? Or are we exactly the kind of people you want taking your message to the streets? Trump/Cruz 2016!

    • I would welcome you to the pro-gun side if you are serious about voting for pro-gun candidates.

      Having said that, I wouldn’t vote for you as a candidate over a lifelong pro-gun candidate.

      Sorry; I have nothing against recent converts, but I’ll take someone who got it right the first time and has lived it every day of their entire life over a born-again-supporter, every day of the week.

  38. A couple of thoughts for all the harrumphers tut-tutting Trump’s candidacy:

    1. Given what we’ve seen with his immigration position, it is clear that Trump is able to change the Overton Window on issues. Before Trump announced his immigration position, all (and I mean ALL) of the GOP candidates were talking about some idiotic “pathway to citizenship” for lawbreaking illegals. Hell, they don’t even want to force enforcement against re-entry for violent felons.

    Trump changed what was “acceptable” policy in two months, single-handedly. Show me any other candidate who has done as much on an issue in as short a time.

    2. There is nothing I see in his RKBA position paper that is offensive. There are several things that are quite possibly going to move the Overton Window on guns – eg, the issue on background checks being ineffective to stop criminals. We know that, we’ve known that for quite a while, but no politician some either party has had the spine to stand up and say this.

    Some in the responses above didn’t like the idea that Trump is simply sub’ing out his detailed policy positions to some hired brains. So far, I don’t have an issue with this, because he’s obviously hiring some pretty sound policy wonks to write his position papers. Jeb Bush certainly isn’t hiring the same people, now is he?

    If Trump is able to get sound policy papers/platform ideas written, and then use the press fixation upon him to get these ideas more widely heard and discussed, then we’ve won big, regardless of whether Trump wins the primary or general. Quit complaining about winning, in other words.

  39. This is why so many status quo people are afraid of Trump.

    It is the democrat billionaires who want to take freedom away from people. They did it in Washington State and Colorado. But they will make sure you have legal Marijuana intoxication.

  40. With Trump I also think that we will be able to gut most of the NFA. SBR’s, SBS’s, suppressor’s ETC removed. Maybe not MG’s but the chance exists.

    • The president doesn’t pass laws, he signs them after they’ve been passed by congress.

      Until you can get a LOT more SOLID pro-gun senators and house members elected, it won’t matter a damn bit who is president; THAT kind of stuff will NEVER get through congress. If the Republicans could get a landslide with big coattails two elections in a row, and some solidly pro-gun Dems defeat the normal Dems at the same time, then we could start thinking about repealing that anti-gun crap. But not before.

  41. I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that Trump’s views on 2A changed for the better when his son got interested in firearms, particularly AR-15s, and educated him on the merits of right to keep and bear arms. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if that’s the case, although the 2A is not my only voting issue.

  42. As much as we’d all agree with everything written here—

    i don’t believe for a second that trump actually has any of this in his heart. He’s an elitist snob, and he is just telling his audience what they want to hear.

    Personally, i believe in personal freedom, so Rand Paul is still my #1 from GOP (I wish actual libertarians were viable).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *