Donald Trump releases position paper on 2nd Amendment Rights - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sableye;48715504]While on paper that's good, in practice unless it's all in an omnibill, then the republicans will stop after deregulation and mandatory federal ccw laws, they have made their position on healthcare policy glaringly obvious in that they want a total free market, die-in-hole system that we had before ACA[/QUOTE] Mandatory CCW laws are a good thing since they require you to obtain a gun license/permit. In order to get a gun license/permit, you have to perform firearms training which is the equivalent of a driver's license test. I recall that you're also subject to another background check by the state. You guys would dig the new system.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48714773]The only thing I care about is gun policy. Trump has my vote.[/QUOTE] :suicide: This is why we can't have nice things.

[QUOTE=Judas;48714734]"i will say literally anything to get you to vote for me"[/QUOTE] Yeah but he says such fucking stupid shit as well.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48714773]The only thing I care about is gun policy. Trump has my vote.[/QUOTE] I love guns and I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Either option is a band aid solution. You get rid of the guns for the public and criminals will still have them. You take the criminals off the street and 5 years later they're just pissed off and right back at it. The problem no one is talking about is why the guns are a "problem". What's causing the violence? Gangs, Drugs, home disputes. If you were to take away the violence cause by gangs and drugs you would be left with crimes of passion, something that is more likely to lead to a murder with a hammer over a firearm. Regardless no one is addressing that issue.

[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48715554]Mandatory CCW laws are a good thing since they require you to obtain a gun license/permit. In order to get a gun license/permit, you have to perform firearms training which is the equivalent of a driver's license test. I recall that you're also subject to another background check by the state. You guys would dig the new system.[/QUOTE] No I meant mandatory as in all states must have them and have no choice about the regulations. It would simplify things some if licenses did transfer across state lines, but some states have very little requirements while others have strict requirements and a republican regulated federal standard would be by nature, lax

Why is owning deadly weapons even a right, I don't get it.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715613]Why is owning deadly weapons even a right, I don't get it.[/QUOTE] 'Cause the danged ol' gub'ment might try ta oppress us, of course!

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48714773]The only thing I care about is gun policy. Trump has my vote.[/QUOTE] Trump is a huge racist and actively hates minorities and gays has my vote to [sp]hahahaaahaha[/sp]

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48715601]I love guns and I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Either option is a band aid solution. You get rid of the guns for the public and criminals will still have them. You take the criminals off the street and 5 years later they're just pissed off and right back at it. The problem no one is talking about is why the guns are a "problem". What's causing the violence? Gangs, Drugs, home disputes. If you were to take away the violence cause by gangs and drugs you would be left with crimes of passion, something that is more likely to lead to a murder with a hammer over a firearm. Regardless no one is addressing that issue.[/QUOTE] Then you have to ask yourselves why criminals are even allowed to have guns in the first place. 100% of arguments against gun bans I've seen so far keep harping about how regulating guns only harms the good guys because the bad guys will get guns anyway. It's such a lazy argument because you outright assume that criminals will always have access to guns without questioning whether well-enforced gun regulation will lead to criminals being unable to get guns as well. Yes, crime is the root of the problem, but guns are the fertiliser that helps it grow. Without guns, crime in general will be less deadly. It's easier to survive a stabbing or a beating than it is to survive a shooting.

misread that post people vote for this asshole for the worst reasons

[QUOTE=kylejburke;48714739]Now if only any of his other positions weren't completely idiotic, maybe he would be worth voting for.[/QUOTE] Which positions are you referring to?

[QUOTE=Ridge;48715661]Which positions are you referring to?[/QUOTE] Foreign policy, gay rights, environmental policy, the national debt, his fucking fence his fucking fence, immigration reform, his fucking fence, deregulation, his "I'll be really good at it, I promise!" Attitude towards all his policy

[QUOTE=Sableye;48715682]Foreign policy, gay rights, environmental policy, the national debt, his fucking fence his fucking fence, immigration reform, his fucking fence, deregulation, his "I'll be really good at it, I promise!" Attitude towards all his policy[/QUOTE] What's wrong with building a fence? The US has a set immigration process, people should not be able to jump the line and get in not face any consequences. And can you please explain his stance on the rest of those subjects and why you disagree with them?

[QUOTE=Ridge;48715696]What's wrong with building a fence? The US has a set immigration process, people should not be able to jump the line and get in not face any consequences. And can you please explain his stance on the rest of those subjects and why you disagree with them?[/QUOTE] Because what's the point in wasting money on it? The quality of life in Canada is pretty much the same, people aren't flocking to the US from Canada like they are from Mexico. The amount of people it would stop, it would never pay for itself.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715640]It's easier to survive a stabbing or a beating than it is to survive a shooting.[/QUOTE] Not entirely true. It's entirely dependent on the situation, but a stabbing where the knife is twisted or turned upward can be more damaging to internal bleeding than a gunshot.

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715724]Because what's the point in wasting money on it? The quality of life in Canada is pretty much the same, people aren't flocking to the US from Canada like they are from Mexico. The amount of people it would stop, it would never pay for itself.[/QUOTE] Isn't there a problem with illegal drugs being smuggled in from canada? Or was that just a saturday night live sketch I'm remembering wrong?

[QUOTE=Sableye;48715602]No I meant mandatory as in all states must have them and have no choice about the regulations. It would simplify things some if licenses did transfer across state lines, but some states have very little requirements while others have strict requirements and a republican regulated federal standard would be by nature, lax[/QUOTE] It's regulated, mandatory CCW also means mandatory firearm training and background checks because of the permit/license requirement. Vermont and Alaska are the only states that don't require a permit or license, but gun culture is different in those places. You're right about some states being lax than others (California's is pretty strict), but they do stress at the bare minimum that you obtain a clean record and become competent with firearms. Here's a good site for this type of stuff: [url]http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html#vermont_concealed_carry_map[/url]

[QUOTE=Ardosos;48715741]Isn't there a problem with illegal drugs being smuggled in from canada? Or was that just a saturday night live sketch I'm remembering wrong?[/QUOTE] I have never heard of any big problems with drug smuggling from Canada.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;48715632]'Cause the danged ol' gub'ment might try ta oppress us, of course![/QUOTE] Retarded redneck impression aside, yes, that is the fucking point of the Second Amendment. Are you going somewhere with this nonsense?

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715777]Retarded redneck impression aside, yes, that is the fucking point of the Second Amendment. Are you going somewhere with this nonsense?[/QUOTE] It doesn't seem fit for purpose anymore. Back in the day sure but not now. You are going to need more than handheld guns to bring down the US government. Maybe you should make missiles, fighter jets and armed drones legal to so that you can bring it up to modern day standards?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715640]Then you have to ask yourselves why criminals are even allowed to have guns in the first place. 100% of arguments against gun bans I've seen so far keep harping about how regulating guns only harms the good guys because the bad guys will get guns anyway. It's such a lazy argument because you outright assume that criminals will always have access to guns without questioning whether well-enforced gun regulation will lead to criminals being unable to get guns as well. Yes, crime is the root of the problem, but guns are the fertiliser that helps it grow. Without guns, crime in general will be less deadly. It's easier to survive a stabbing or a beating than it is to survive a shooting.[/QUOTE] Nope. With prompt treatment, the survival rate for people shot in the torso is from 80-90% [editline]18th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;48715793]It doesn't seem fit for purpose anymore. Back in the day sure but not now. You are going to need more than handheld guns to bring down the US government. Maybe you should make missiles, fighter jets and armed drones legal to so that you can bring it up to modern day standards?[/QUOTE] It's perfectly legal for civillians to own fighter jets. They're just stupidly expensive. Some missiles are legal as well, as long as they're registered as a destructive device, much paperwork is done, and you wait nine months or so. Plus pay $200 for a tax stamp. Same as a suppressor, or automatic firearm.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715797]Nope. With prompt treatment, the survival rate for people shot in the torso is from 80-90%[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/[/url] "A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188[/url] "Specifically, the mortality rate of gunshot wound of the heart 24.5% and that of stab wound of the heart, 11.5%." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780588[/url] "There were 148 patients with gunshot wounds (GSW) and 154 patients with stab wounds with 23% and 58% survival rates, respectively." I could go on.

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715793]It doesn't seem fit for purpose anymore. Back in the day sure but not now. You are going to need more than handheld guns to bring down the US government. Maybe you should make missiles, fighter jets and armed drones legal to so that you can bring it up to modern day standards?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;48715837][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url][/QUOTE] Things have changed a lot since WW2. That's not even relevant anymore.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715833][url]http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/[/url] "A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188[/url] "Specifically, the mortality rate of gunshot wound of the heart 24.5% and that of stab wound of the heart, 11.5%." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10780588[/url] "There were 148 patients with gunshot wounds (GSW) and 154 patients with stab wounds with 23% and 58% survival rates, respectively." I could go on.[/QUOTE] Dude, what? You're lucky if anyone survives being shot directly in the heart. (Link no.2). As to the others, brb, googling.

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;48715196]You realize that's how it is with EVERY nominee right?[/QUOTE] Except the ones I like of course! :rock:

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715857]Things have changed a lot since WW2. That's not even relevant anymore.[/QUOTE] What has changed, exactly? How is it not relevant to this argument?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715613]Why is owning deadly weapons even a right, I don't get it.[/QUOTE] And you're never going to get it.

Re headhumpy [url]http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1&referrer=[/url]

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715877]What has changed, exactly? How is it not relevant to this argument?[/QUOTE] He's from a British penal colony, there's no way they could understand it.