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

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715868]Dude, what? You're lucky if anyone survives being shot directly in the heart. (Link no.2). As to the others, brb, googling.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15839970[/url] "The total mortality rate for the severely injured patients was 21%, with gun-related injuries having a higher mortality rate than stabbing injury (36%vs 15%)" [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23402982[/url] "Knives are less lethal than firearms." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9107323[/url] "Rates of nonfatal injury were similar (firearm, 34.3 per 100,000 person-years; stabbing, 35.1). However, rates of fatal injury were significantly different (firearm, 21.9; stabbing, 2.7; relative risk: 8.2; 95% confidence interval: 5.4, 12.5)" I'm not sure why you think that a projectile travelling at the speed of sound penetrating the body is less fatal than a stab wound.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48714689]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.[/QUOTE] This is a absolutely terrible idea. But then again it's Donald Trump so I guess I shouldn't have set the bar so high.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715902]Re headhumpy [url]http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1&referrer=[/url][/QUOTE] Wow, one person survived multiple gunshot wounds, that must mean that firearms are nonlethal!

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715917][url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15839970[/url] "The total mortality rate for the severely injured patients was 21%, with gun-related injuries having a higher mortality rate than stabbing injury (36%vs 15%)" [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23402982[/url] "Knives are less lethal than firearms." [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9107323[/url] "Rates of nonfatal injury were similar (firearm, 34.3 per 100,000 person-years; stabbing, 35.1). However, rates of fatal injury were significantly different (firearm, 21.9; stabbing, 2.7; relative risk: 8.2; 95% confidence interval: 5.4, 12.5)" I'm not sure why you think that a projectile travelling at the speed of sound penetrating the body is less fatal than a stab wound.[/QUOTE] And I'm not sure why you think a slashed throat or severed vein can be walked off.

[QUOTE=Ridge;48715837][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url][/QUOTE] Civilians vs deputies is very much different from militia vs US Armed Forces. Any militia will get crushed if the US Armed Forces want them to be crushed. [QUOTE=Apache249;48715892]And you're never going to get it.[/QUOTE] Epic zinger aside, I still haven't seen a good argument for guns that doesn't resort to assuming that gun ownership is a right.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715923]Wow, one person survived multiple gunshot wounds, that must mean that firearms are nonlethal![/QUOTE] Don't be a tard. Try reading the article. The rates given were what I said earlier.

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715857]Things have changed a lot since WW2. That's not even relevant anymore.[/QUOTE] A war between the US government and the general population would almost certainly be a guerrilla war; obviously a standing army can beat under-armed civilians in a pitched battle, but asymmetric warfare balances the scales. For example, see: [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War[/url] [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war[/url] [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War[/url] [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_II[/url]

[QUOTE=Ridge;48715837][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url][/QUOTE] Ah yes the good old days of 1946 where they had the drones, fighter jets and missiles that he mentioned

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715934]And I'm not sure why you think a slashed throat or severed vein can be walked off.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? I didn't say that. I said that gunshot wounds have a higher mortality rate than stab wounds, and I've pointed you to three studies that flat out state that, with evidence to back it up. All you did was link one news article with an unsourced quote.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715935]Civilians vs deputies is very much different from militia vs US Armed Forces. Any militia will get crushed if the US Armed Forces want them to be crushed.[/QUOTE] Believe it or not, American soldiers aren't just mindless killbots that will shoot whoever they're told to. It's their families, neighbors, etc that they'd be facing off against.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715935]Civilians vs deputies is very much different from militia vs US Armed Forces. Any militia will get crushed if the US Armed Forces want them to be crushed. Epic zinger aside, I still haven't seen a good argument for guns that doesn't resort to assuming that gun ownership is a right.[/QUOTE] Defense from domestic tyranny, foreign invasion, muggings, home invasions, rapists, plus the hobbies of sport shooting and hunting. And there's more I didn't list.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;48715940]Don't be a tard. Try reading the article. The rates given were what I said earlier.[/QUOTE] Well I'm sorry to say that your single quote from a doctor is a bit more unreliable than multiple peer-reviewed studies that state otherwise. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=viper shtf;48715958]Defense from domestic tyranny, foreign invasion, muggings, home invasions, rapists, plus the hobbies of sport shooting and hunting. And there's more I didn't list.[/QUOTE] The first point is moot because unless you want to allow militias access to military technology, they will be hopelessly outmatched. Everything else apart from sport shooting can be achieved without a gun.

[QUOTE=richard9311;48714883]Damn it. Why does there have to be this sane bit within a pile of absolute crazy?[/QUOTE] Well... let's just say that in any other country this policy is fucking batshit crazy, but we're in America so don't worry. We're already crazy enough to have fucking 300 million guns, might as well be allowed to bear them.

[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] You understand that guns are incredibly simply devices right? It is actually easier to build a full auto blow back sub-machine gun than it is to make a blow back semi-auto carbine. Anyone with half a brain, a drill press, a tig welder, and access to a hardware store can essentially build a STEN. You ban gun production and ownership you're going to see a spike in home made firearms. Not to mention our government can't stop cocaine from crossing the border, what would make guns any different? You also fail to recognize the scale of which firearms have permeated the country. There is an Estimated 310 Million firearms in the country already, with billions of rounds of ammunition. You could choke the supplier but the current supply would last years to come, and that's assuming that ammunition isn't illegally coming across the border or being manufactured in illicit shops. You would also create an incredibly lucrative black market, since pretty much none of the guns are registered in a formal matter. Even if you force registration a large majority will not comply, and even if the 4th amendment is broken they'll never be able to come close to getting all of them.

[QUOTE=Ta16;48715918]This is a absolutely terrible idea. But then again it's Donald Trump so I guess I shouldn't have set the bar so high.[/QUOTE] How is it terrible?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48715980]You understand that guns are incredibly simply devices right? It is actually easier to build a full auto blow back sub-machine gun than it is to make a blow back semi-auto carbine. Anyone with half a brain, a drill press, a tig welder, and access to a hardware store can essentially build a STEN. You ban gun production and ownership you're going to see a spike in home made firearms. Not to mention our government can't stop cocaine from crossing the border, what would make guns any different? You also fail to recognize the scale of which firearms have permeated the country. There is an Estimated 310 Million firearms in the country already, with billions of rounds of ammunition. You could choke the supplier but the current supply would last years to come, and that's assuming that ammunition isn't illegally coming across the border or being manufactured in illicit shops. You would also create an incredibly lucrative black market, since pretty much none of the guns are registered in a formal matter. Even if you force registration a large majority will not comply, and even if the 4th amendment is broken they'll never be able to come close to getting all of them.[/QUOTE] Perhaps I should have worded my post better. I realise that a ban is not possible at this point, however stricter (and more effective) regulation that leads to criminals having less guns is certainly a good thing, and I hope you agree with me.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715959]Well I'm sorry to say that your single quote from a doctor is a bit more unreliable than multiple peer-reviewed studies that state otherwise. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] The first point is moot because unless you want to allow militias access to military technology, they will be hopelessly outmatched. Everything else apart from sport shooting can be achieved without a gun.[/QUOTE] How can these things be accomplished without firearms? (Except hunting. You're gonna say bows, or spears, or some other less humane way to kill critters.)

[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] Firearms are already heavily regulated for law abiding citizens. We do have a high amount of firearm deaths, but a large amount of our firearm deaths are suicides.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48715980]You understand that guns are incredibly simply devices right? It is actually easier to build a full auto blow back sub-machine gun than it is to make a blow back semi-auto carbine. Anyone with half a brain, a drill press, a tig welder, and access to a hardware store can essentially build a STEN. You ban gun production and ownership you're going to see a spike in home made firearms. Not to mention our government can't stop cocaine from crossing the border, what would make guns any different? You also fail to recognize the scale of which firearms have permeated the country. There is an Estimated 310 Million firearms in the country already, with billions of rounds of ammunition. You could choke the supplier but the current supply would last years to come, and that's assuming that ammunition isn't illegally coming across the border or being manufactured in illicit shops. You would also create an incredibly lucrative black market, since pretty much none of the guns are registered in a formal matter. Even if you force registration a large majority will not comply, and even if the 4th amendment is broken they'll never be able to come close to getting all of them.[/QUOTE] This. You can walk into a hardware store and walk out with the parts for a homemade shotgun in ten minutes.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48715601]I love guns and I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.[/QUOTE] It pains me that Donal Trump of all fucking people has the most appealing views on firearms ownership. [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715640]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.[/QUOTE] Criminals 3 main methods of acquiring guns are not really regulated though. They get them from friends or relatives who have squeaky clean records and buy them legitimately at a retailer, they get them from legit owners who's homes or cards they burglarize, and lastly they get them from legitimate retailers who illegally sell out the back door because the market is there.

[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] Only that in my experience, the people who appear to be the most passionate about owning fire-arms are also some of the nuttiest people I've ever seen. Makes me feel uneasy as fuck.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715613]Why is owning deadly weapons even a right, I don't get it.[/QUOTE] I can see it in the case of hunting rifles/shotguns. I mean, anything can be a deadly weapon if you know how to use it. There are several things we must contemplate when talking about gun control. The first is do guns serve a practical purpose outside of their intended purpose (which is killing people, let's not sugarcoat it). For many firearms, that is a yes. Hunting is an important staple of American society that serves a valuable ecological role. It keeps the natural order in balance as a lack of natural predators would lead to unsustainable populations among many animals. However, some guns do not fulfill this purpose. Civilian versions of military weapons are not really practical for hunting, but the biggest offender (and the one that the Department of Justice says is involved in [URL="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf"]90% of nonfatal firearm crime and 70-80% firearm homicides[/URL]) is the handgun. Handguns are impractical for hunting for numerous reasons and really only exist to incapacitate or kill individuals. Considering the vast majority of firearm-related crimes are committed with handguns, maybe they are the subject that needs the most reproach? Let's take into account another factor. Mass shootings in the US tend to captivate the media but a majority of firearm-related crime and homicide does not qualify as a mass shooting. Usually firearm homicide is targeted at one or several specific individuals. Referencing that report again, the individuals most likely to be involved in a firearm homicide are black males ages 18 to 24. That group is one of the poorest in our society, and a number of social factors like drugs, gang violence, and poverty play a significant role in the crimes they commit. So to bring us to a conclusion, how does gun control fit into all this? Well, outright bans on weapons doesn't seem to have any real affect on crime rates, positive or negative. It doesn't seem to matter a great deal in major metropolitan areas were illegal firearms are abundant for purchase. Chicago had effectively banned handguns prior to 2010. Throughout the 21st Century, their crime rates decreased, indicating a potential drop due to the ban. However, federal courts overturned the ban in 2010, yet crime rates [URL="https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports/10AR.pdf"]still decreased (pg. 14)[/URL]. This trend seems to be independent of the ban, as crime rates have [URL="http://crime.chicagotribune.com/"]continued to decline[/URL] even without the ban. So if the ban is ineffectual, what helps? During the 21st Century, America had a variety of federal court rulings and legislation passed. Most of these validated American's right to own and carry a weapon, but some legislation put more stringent background checks for potential gun owners. Throughout the 21st Century, firearm-related crime rates have steadily decreased from a high in 1993. The difficulty is that America was in an objectively better socio-economic position in 1993, so in theory gun violence should have been [I]down[/I] due to less socio-economic pressure on the impoverished group mentioned above. Despite a worsening of conditions since 1993 for many Americans, firearm crime rates have decreased. This displays several current trends. The first is that our police forces receive far more funding, which has been increasing their effectiveness in halting these crimes and possibly acting a deterrent. The second is that the legislation passed is actually effectual. Taking all of this into account, I believe that gun control through the means of banning weapons is not a solution. We have evidence in the past that it is largely independent of gun-related crime and mostly harms legal gun owners. However, background checks, especially where mental health is involved, are still limited due to privacy protections. You cannot fairly determine if your customer has a mental illness or has had one, and thus you cannot be sure what their state of mind is. I think this would cut down on the number of mass shootings that occur. However, to really combat the problem, we need to target the most important -yet unspoken- element of gun crime: gun culture. Firearms are ingrained into American culture in a way few items are, and that becomes problematic and many view firearms as more than a tool. Our reverence of firearms is the problem in and of itself. I think disarming America starts with our acceptance that firearms are not toys or collectibles but something to be treated seriously. It is important to remember that the majority of firearms used in gun crimes are legally purchased according to the Department of Justice, despite the reduction in legally purchased firearms in gun crimes in recent years. I would also like to point out the insipidity of basing our laws entirely off of a 200 year old document written in a vastly different time by people who could be just as incorrect as the rest of us. Taking the Constitution as unequivocal fact is damaging due to its vagueness. The different conditions of the 18th century must also make us question whether the Second Amendment is even applicable in a world where one gun can kill tens of individuals while being lightweight and concealable, as back in the 18th century firearms were far, far more limited in their capacity to kill. I cannot personally claim to have all the answers, but hopefully the facts presented in my post can be useful to some. As a personal conclusion, I believe that firearms do need stricter regulation in some way, but to fix the issue we must reconcile the issues from which gun crime stems; poverty, inequality, racism, drug abuse, and gang violence. Each of these issues has their own solutions I may propose, but this is not the post to do so. [editline]potato[/editline] And concerning Trump; don't vote for this asshole just because of his stance of gun control. There are far more important issues affecting the United States today than whether or not you get to own an AR-15. You should be worried about our abhorrent wages, lack of worker protections, anti-union crusade, rampant inequality, increasingly expensive healthcare and college education, and a decreasingly wealthy society. Guns are an extremely minute issue in the grand puzzle that is America, and to let them define your vote is nothing more than pure idiocy.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715935]Epic zinger aside, I still haven't seen a good argument for guns that doesn't resort to assuming that gun ownership is a right.[/QUOTE] Then you haven't been around very much because over dozens of threads there have been plenty of "good arguments" that don't resort to defending them just because they're a right. Of course, you already know this and are just cherrypicking to suit your rhethoric. [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48716043]Perhaps I should have worded my post better. I realise that a ban is not possible at this point, however stricter (and more effective) regulation that leads to criminals having less guns is certainly a good thing, and I hope you agree with me.[/QUOTE] Uh huh. And your way of wording that was, of course, saying that almost every thing normal people are doing with guns can be done without guns and should therefore be done without them, regardless of whether or not those people are harming anyone or not. [I]Nobody on Facepunch[/I] is going to disagree that making it harder for criminals to access guns is a good thing, so what exactly are you trying to achieve here? This sounds like backpedaling.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;48714719]I agree with the majority of his points, however the above I do not. Mandatory minimum sentences are terrible, regardless of context, because they remove the legal system's ability to judge on a case by case basis and make decisions based on the nuances of each case, rather than being forced to apply a minimum sentence because of some law.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but there are no 'nuances' to armed crime. You're committing a crime with a weapon that is always deadly. It doesn't matter what circumstances pushed you to do it, you threatened someone's life with a gun to get something from them. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48714735]I personally believe that if you are commiting a crime with a weapon, with said weapon used as a tool of intimidation it should definitely add to your punishment. Granted if the weapon is on your body when you are doing something like a house breakin, it should also count against you. But if it's something like... Oh I was smoking pot and I had a gun on me. That's pretty shotty. Context is needed, but I believe it's a good idea to reintroduce Project Exile across the country. Also another thing which caught my interest was the mention of how the only people with mental illnesses that need to be dealt with are realistically the unstable and violent rather then the cleansweeping regulations that goes against anyone under a certain alignment. IIRC, some of the current nominees actually called for expanded background checks that disallow those with PTSD from owning firearms.[/QUOTE] IMO it was fairly clear. It says "uses a gun to commit a crime". Unless you have a really rad bong, you aren't smoking pot with a gun. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ajacks;48714741]National carry permits would be nice, but with that they should at least have a required firearms safety course on concealed carrying.[/QUOTE] Most states already require some semblance of training/safety class to get a concealed carry permit. [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [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] The ACA needs a lot of work, though. Sure it's a step in the right direction but it fucked a LOT of things up in the process. For example: You can now no longer get full time hours as a part time worker at almost any company, because the ACA requires workers working more than part time hours be given full time health care benefits. It sounds good on paper, but it doesn't work at all because all companies will do is limit the # of hours PT workers can have and hire more to get around it. So, before ACA, I had no employer provided health care but I got 40 hours a week as a 'part time' associate that only got vision and dental. Now after ACA, I still have no employer provided health care, but I only get 29 hours a week as a part time associate and still only get vision and dental. Except now I have to go out and work a SECOND job to make enough money to cover my bills and I STILL don't have health care because it's still not 'affordable'. I don't necessarily agree with the republicans' desire to remove it completely but it needs a lot of work to make it work.

[QUOTE=Morgen;48715857]Things have changed a lot since WW2. That's not even relevant anymore.[/QUOTE]Oh, you want a modern [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29]example?[/url] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715935]Civilians vs deputies is very much different from militia vs US Armed Forces. Any militia will get crushed if the US Armed Forces want them to be crushed.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Headhumpy;48715959]The first point is moot because unless you want to allow militias access to military technology, they will be hopelessly outmatched. Everything else apart from sport shooting can be achieved without a gun.[/QUOTE]Your argument is one of the dumbest ones I see crop up all the time, it's like the people who say it (including you) don't understand what the word "insurgency" even means. See above for a great example, there's [i]still[/i] fighting and it's been over a decade and the insurgency still hasn't been crushed. What makes that example really great is the occupying military in Afghanistan fighting against the insurgents is the same military we're talking about in this hypothetical scenario fighting against insurgents. I suppose the only [i]real[/i] difference is the level of training, most of the people who would fight against a tyrannical government are military veterans but that certainly doesn't help your case. I'm getting really tired of this argument being thrown up like it's some really sick burn and proves guns are somehow invalid, especially since any examination of the argument proves how completely fucking stupid it is. [editline]fuck you the golden[/editline] Oh, and "militias" already have access to "military technology" because "military technology" is often regular shit painted OD green.

-snip-

[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] Criminals will realistically always have access to firearms or rather the knowledge of how to make them. Taking Australia as an example, through out the late 2000's, Australia has seen an explosion of it's DIY community turning towards the manufacture of weapons in order to make ends meat during the economic recession. As the recession has slowed down, you would figure this trend would slowly recede, but it's still going strong and the methods for "guerilla production" as some would call it is improving by the day. When I started getting interested with guerilla/homemade production of firearms in my early teens, I recall that Australia had pretty primitive one shot shotguns in the 2007-2008 area. Now, you see people pumping out near-identical copies of the same firearm, of which is almost near industrial grade in terms of quality and production. Not to mention where homemade firearms only counted for roughly 5% of all weapons seized in Australia in the early 2000's, they now account for 25% to 40% of all weapons seized with that number going up by 3% every year.

[QUOTE=The golden;48716886]American obsession with firearms which borders on being downright sexually fetishistic.[/QUOTE] Sexual, you say? :speedfap: Other than that you really have no idea what you're talking about, gonna need some sources on that borderline fetishism [editline]19th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;48716504]Only that in my experience, the people who appear to be the most passionate about owning fire-arms are also some of the nuttiest people I've ever seen. Makes me feel uneasy as fuck.[/QUOTE] How's that? Most law abiding firearm owners that I know are easy going people, don't stick their nose in other people's business and don't try to push pro-gun stuff in everyone's face. Maybe you're just hanging around the wrong people. But then again i'm American, been exposed to gun culture all my life, live in the south with like minded people, and generally stick to my beliefs. So I guess I can understand how people who have not been exposed to the gun culture from a personal level and are looking at it from a strictly logical and statistical standpoint from different countries can jump on gun control, makes sense from their point of view. One thing I can't seem to grasp though is why do foreigners care so much about U.S. gun policy? It can't possibly be hurting them other than giving them one more thing to argue about. Eh, whatever I'm gonna continue enjoying my guns as a hobby.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;48714773]The only thing I care about is gun policy. Trump has my vote.[/QUOTE] Surely the rest of the Republican platform holds similar views? Why not vote for one of those guys and get an all-around package?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;48717162]Surely the rest of the Republican platform holds similar views? Why not vote for one of those guys and get an all-around package?[/QUOTE] Most of the Republican nominees are for an AWB sadly.