Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His Prope

[haymarket]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

You know very well that I am an ardent gun rights supporter, even though I don't own any myself. If you don't? Simply follow any of my posts in gun rights threads.

However (for the sake of argument since I don't actually do this), if I choose to forbid guns on my property for whatever reason that would not detract from my support of the overall issue. It simply means that as a personal preference I might not want them on MY property.

We all have a right to keep and bear arms. The root of this right is the right to self-defense. Self defense includes protection of yourself and your property. YOU do not have a right to access MY property. I can grant you this privilege and set such conditions as I see fit. You are free to choose not to access under such conditions, but attempting to do so thereafter would invoke my right to self-defense.

My friends, hopefully knowing of this preference would have options on how to respond to this requirement. They could refuse to visit me and instead invite me to their homes. They could visit me and leave their weapons in their cars for relative ease of access. They could end the friendship over the issue. Their right to keep arms has not been violated, only their right to bear arms has been limited by my property right rules. Meanwhile, in all other public areas and of course on their own property they can keep and bear arms.



How is this hypocrisy?

And so if you can make the rules on your property, who is it that makes the rules on public or governmental property? I know the answer but I want to see if you do.

It is hypocrisy for the previous reasons that I clearly explained that you seem to NOT want to comprehend. Again, for you

when Trump makes the rules - he decides NO GUNS. But for the country - he will chime in on the more guns the merrier bandwagon to suck up to and curry favor with the gun fanatics of the NRA.


That is how it is hypocrisy.

 

[Crimefree]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

And so if you can make the rules on your property, who is it that makes the rules on public or governmental property? I know the answer but I want to see if you do.

Everybody does and they also know government cannot make any rules that infringe rights individual or not.

It is hypocrisy for the previous reasons that I clearly explained that you seem to NOT want to comprehend. Again, for you

I'm not surprised. Who could?

when Trump makes the rules - he decides NO GUNS. But for the country - he will chime in on the more guns the merrier bandwagon to suck up to and curry favor with the gun fanatics of the NRA.

It's a strawman argument. Trumps property is bound by a different set of rules. You could possibly argue if he invites the public on his property but even that will fail. Trump does not decide for the country so your argument fails on two counts.

That is how it is hypocrisy.

It is not but he is tossing a hand grenade into the anti-social merchants of death camp and showing how dangerous their gun control policy policy is.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

Everybody does and they also know government cannot make any rules that infringe rights individual or not.

So you agree that the American people can make these laws through their elected representatives. Great.

It's a strawman argument. Trumps property is bound by a different set of rules. You could possibly argue if he invites the public on his property but even that will fail. Trump does not decide for the country so your argument fails on two counts.

Its an in your face stop being an idiot argument and in this case the idiot is Donald Trump. The guy is simply taking this contradictory position for one reason and one reason only and we all know what it is - to curry favor with gun nuts and win their votes in November. So he says what he has to say.

When it comes to his own life and his own properties, he is no friend of the gun lobby and is more than happy to say no guns wanted here.

And any gun person who buys that line of crap deserves the stink that comes off it.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

you posted the exact same nonsense someplace else so I will respond with what I said there


so I guess you are claiming that us pro second amendment voters should vote for Cankles-the woman whose daughter brags that her mom will replace SCALIA with someone who will OVERTURN Heller

for a harridan who claims that British and Australian Gun confiscation schemes should be applied in the USA

for a woman who thinks gun makers should be subjected to frivolous law suits

Yeah, come to think of it I am going to vote for Trump due to the gun issue

Yeah - wouldn't it be awful to have the kind of person in the White House who would stand with Obama's call for gun restrictions after Newtown?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

And so if you can make the rules on your property, who is it that makes the rules on public or governmental property? I know the answer but I want to see if you do.

The people as a whole do acting through their government. HOWEVER...

Individual rights, as I have tried to argue with you (or was it Henrin? Both alias' start with H and your debate tactics are similar so forgive me if I get confused :shrug exist in a state of nature enforced by the free will and the capability of each individual.

When societies and governments are organized it is because individuals have agreed to group together the better to protect their individual rights by group action. Thus they can also agree to VOLUNTARILY limit the extent of their own natural rights to co-exist in continued cooperation.

Even so, individual rights may not be limited to the point of non-existence by the majority so that individual members no longer see value in further cooperation. At that point the social compact becomes null and void, and the individual can take up complete responsibility to enforce his rights by himself.

To do so effectively, he must have the capability to act effectively in self-defense.

This is why the Federal government's power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was limited by the Second Amendment; and thanks to Heller (clearing up the controversy as an individual rather than militia right), and MacDonald (that the restriction of the 2A applies to States as well) has settled those issues.

Still, much like the controversial decision in Obergefell regarding same sex marriage, nay-sayers and opponents will always seek ways to undermine such rights by whatever means necessary. Doesn't matter though, because in the end it is up to each individual to decide how they will exercise such rights.

It is hypocrisy for the previous reasons that I clearly explained that you seem to NOT want to comprehend. Again, for you

when Trump makes the rules - he decides NO GUNS. But for the country - he will chime in on the more guns the merrier bandwagon to suck up to and curry favor with the gun fanatics of the NRA.

And again for YOU: a property owner retains the right to decide who is allowed on his property. If you don't want to follow the rules for the privilege of entering the property you don't have to enter and your rights have not been infringed.

There is no hypocrisy. :no:

 

[haymarket]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

The people as a whole do acting through their government. HOWEVER...

Individual rights, as I have tried to argue with you (or was it Henrin? Both alias' start with H and your debate tactics are similar so forgive me if I get confused :shrug exist in a state of nature enforced by the free will and the capability of each individual.

When societies and governments are organized it is because individuals have agreed to group together the better to protect their individual rights by group action. Thus they can also agree to VOLUNTARILY limit the extent of their own natural rights to co-exist in continued cooperation.

Even so, individual rights may not be limited to the point of non-existence by the majority so that individual members no longer see value in further cooperation. At that point the social compact becomes null and void, and the individual can take up complete responsibility to enforce his rights by himself.

To do so effectively, he must have the capability to act effectively in self-defense.

This is why the Federal government's power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms was limited by the Second Amendment; and thanks to Heller (clearing up the controversy as an individual rather than militia right), and MacDonald (that the restriction of the 2A applies to States as well) has settled those issues.

Still, much like the controversial decision in Obergefell regarding same sex marriage, nay-sayers and opponents will always seek ways to undermine such rights by whatever means necessary. Doesn't matter though, because in the end it is up to each individual to decide how they will exercise such rights.



And again for YOU: a property owner retains the right to decide who is allowed on his property. If you don't want to follow the rules for the privilege of entering the property you don't have to enter and your rights have not been infringed.

There is no hypocrisy. :no:

First, I do admire your use of language. You would have made a great political speech writer working for any number of politicians. I know because I did that for a few years myself.

Lets cut to the chase here and pare your eloquence down to simple common bar talk: are you saying if America tries to limit your gun rights and you don't like it you will use those same guns to kill government officials?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

Yeah - wouldn't it be awful to have the kind of person in the White House who would stand with Obama's call for gun restrictions after Newtown?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

you only have two realistic choices for president so lets get realistic for once

1) you have a woman who has done the following

a) pushed for the clinton assault weapon ban

b) has pushed for renewal and expansion of that ban

c) chose an Attorney General who was among the most anti gun in US History

d) Pushed for Justices who were anti gun

e) has been consistent in pushing for gun bans for 25 years

f) has praised the English and Australian gun bans and confiscation

g) has consistently opposed the law that prevents frivolous lawsuits-designed to bankrupt gun makers-from being viable

h) has bragged, and through her daughter bragged-that she will replace Scalia with a Justice who will overturn Heller

i) is a member of the party that has passed every single restriction on gun rights at a federal level

j) is beholden to almost every group in the USA that sees white conservative male gun owners as their enemy


vs a guy who

1) has been for gun bans in the past

2) has been for an expanded waiting period in the past

3) has never actually campaigned for gun bans

4) does have a CCW license

5) has called for justices who generally are not anti gun

6) who now says he opposes the clinton gun ban schemes

7) appeared before the NRA and accepted their endorsement



Yeah Trump might not be trustworthy

he might not be a true believer

but there is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that Hilary will do everything possible to stick it to the NRA and gun owners if that bitch is elected.

so go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson or Rand Paul or Wayne LaPierre. real gun owners cannot afford having Hildabeast in office because I DO BELIEVE her when she says she wants to see Heller overturned and Gun makers sued anytime some Democrat constituent shoots someone with a stolen gun

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

you only have two realistic choices for president

That is incorrect. I can vote for a bunch of people. Only two people at this point have a close to 50% chance of winning. Both of those people, however, are anti-gun liberal authoritarians. Only one, however, has the memory of what happens when you "poke the bear".

1) you have a woman who has done the following

a) pushed for the clinton assault weapon ban

Which was supported by Donald Trump.

b) has pushed for renewal and expansion of that ban

Which was supported by Donald Trump.

c) chose an Attorney General who was among the most anti gun in US History

d) Pushed for Justices who were anti gun

e) has been consistent in pushing for gun bans for 25 years

Again, you aren't drawing daylight between Hillary and Trump, here.

f) has praised the English and Australian gun bans and confiscation

g) has consistently opposed the law that prevents frivolous lawsuits-designed to bankrupt gun makers-from being viable

h) has bragged, and through her daughter bragged-that she will replace Scalia with a Justice who will overturn Heller

i) is a member of the party that has passed every single restriction on gun rights at a federal level

j) is beholden to almost every group in the USA that sees white conservative male gun owners as their enemy

vs a guy who

1) has been for gun bans in the past

2) has been for an expanded waiting period in the past

3) has never actually campaigned for gun bans

4) does have a CCW license

5) has called for justices who generally are not anti gun

6) who now says he opposes the clinton gun ban schemes

7) appeared before the NRA and accepted their endorsement

Yeah Trump might not be trustworthy

he might not be a true believer

but there is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that Hilary will do everything possible to stick it to the NRA and gun owners if that bitch is elected.

Her husband tried that, and got burned for it. So between the two of them, the main differences are: 1. He has an R after his name and 2. She's been burned on this issue, and learned caution.

so go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson or Rand Paul or Wayne LaPierre. real gun owners cannot afford having Hildabeast in office because I DO BELIEVE her when she says she wants to see Heller overturned and Gun makers sued anytime some Democrat constituent shoots someone with a stolen gun

:shrug: I'm a real gun owner. I see that I have no ally at the top of a major party ticket, and calls to vote for one over the other because Hope are fantasy.

Remember: this is the guy who backed Obama's attempted gun grab after Newtown. When the next shooting and over-reaction occurs, you own it when he calls for gun restrictions. He told you who he was before you voted for him.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

That is incorrect. I can vote for a bunch of people. Only two people at this point have a close to 50% chance of winning. Both of those people, however, are anti-gun liberal authoritarians. Only one, however, has the memory of what happens when you "poke the bear".



Which was supported by Donald Trump.



Which was supported by Donald Trump.



Again, you aren't drawing daylight between Hillary and Trump, here.



Her husband tried that, and got burned for it. So between the two of them, the main differences are: 1. He has an R after his name and 2. She's been burned on this issue, and learned caution.



:shrug: I'm a real gun owner. I see that I have no ally at the top of a major party ticket, and calls to vote for one over the other because Hope are fantasy.

Remember: this is the guy who backed Obama's attempted gun grab after Newtown. When the next shooting and over-reaction occurs, you own it when he calls for gun restrictions. He told you who he was before you voted for him.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

If you think that a democrat run whitehouse with Hillary at the head of it is going to be better for gun rights than a GOP run white house with Trump, I cannot help you

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

If you think that a democrat run whitehouse with Hillary at the head of it is going to be better for gun rights than a GOP run white house with Trump, I cannot help you

I don't think it will necessarily be better (it could be). I just don't think it will be all that different.

When it comes to needing help... :shrug: I'm not the one scrambling to justify voting for someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[JANFU]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

You refuse to hear the divisiveness and hypocrisy of Hillary at the same time. I think most of us already know how bad Trump is.

Excepting the massive numbers of cheerleaders who voted for and endorse him.

 

[Cavendish]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

I don't think it will necessarily be better (it could be). I just don't think it will be all that different.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

The delicate balance on the Supreme Court is going to be completely shaken over the next few years; it's inevitable. If Hillary is the next president, gun rights will basically disappear for the next generation.

Hey, at least you can tell your children that you didn't vote for the Heritage Foundation Supreme Court nominees list, but instead voted for the open-borders spoiler Gary Johnson, electing the most hostile president in American history to gun rights.

And, you did that just to prove a point?

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

I don't think it will necessarily be better (it could be). I just don't think it will be all that different.

When it comes to needing help... :shrug: I'm not the one scrambling to justify voting for someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

the most important thing in elections is winning. Being a purist might help one stay smug but its pretty worthless when elections have consequences. and I would much rather have Rob Portman, Rand Paul and Steve Chabot pick the federal judges in my area than Sherrod Brown and Alison Lightweight Grimes

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

The delicate balance on the Supreme Court is going to be completely shaken over the next few years; it's inevitable. If Hillary is the next president, gun rights will basically disappear for the next generation.

Hey, at least you can tell your children that you didn't vote for the Heritage Foundation Supreme Court nominees list, but instead voted for the open-borders spoiler Gary Johnson, electing the most hostile president in American history to gun rights.

And, you did that just to prove a point?

so he can sit back and complain no matter who wins since he knows GJ has no hope of winning.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

the most important thing in elections is winning.

The purpose of politics is to Portuguese as forum for us to translate ideological preferences into public policy. When the GOP leaves behind the ideological preference of conservatism, it ceases to matter whether they win or lose.

Being a purist might help one stay smug

True. It's something I'll have to watch out for.

but its pretty worthless when elections have consequences.

On the contrary, it's quite useful when elections have consequences. Most especially when parties think that (as you say) the most important thing is winning. Hopefully the GOP's decision to nominate a man opposed to the Constitution and Conservatism causes them to lose. Otherwise, they won't learn not to do that.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Cavendish]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

On the contrary, it's quite useful when elections have consequences. Most especially when parties think that (as you say) the most important thing is winning. Hopefully the GOP's decision to nominate a man opposed to the Constitution and Conservatism causes them to lose. Otherwise, they won't learn not to do that.

Enjoy having functional open borders for the next generation, several amnesties, and the irrecoverable infringement on your gun rights.

Don't you get it, cpwill. The longer the clock ticks the less likely a "conservative purist" could get elected with whom you'd identify. No "American" politician is going to be invoking Locke or Jefferson in 2024 and onwards (true peak is 2034-38 era, when the process is sealed off for good).

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

The delicate balance on the Supreme Court is going to be completely shaken over the next few years; it's inevitable. If Hillary is the next president, gun rights will basically disappear for the next generation.

Hey, at least you can tell your children that you didn't vote for the Heritage Foundation Supreme Court nominees list, but instead voted for the open-borders spoiler Gary Johnson, electing the most hostile president in American history to gun rights.

And, you did that just to prove a point?

[emoji38] Trump walked back that list the same day he issued it, and you think he's going to fight for it?

Both Hillary and Trump would be awful Presidents, and the country will blame their party for them. Trump in office discredits the GOP and Conservatism for a generation. We won't lose our gun rights in the next 4 years. But we will in a 20 year period of liberal dominance that a Trump Presidency will bring. We are already halfway screwed just by having him as the face of the party.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

so he can sit back and complain no matter who wins since he knows GJ has no hope of winning.

I'm not voting for Johnson at this point. But of course I will critique whichever of the liberal Democrat authoritarians wind up in the White House. By not voting for them, I'm not responsible for them out what they do. But you will be.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

Enjoy having functional open borders for the next generation, several amnesties, and the irrecoverable infringement on your gun rights.

[emoji38] we lost those fights when Trump won the nomination, dude. Barring a miracle, 2016 is already lost. I'm trying to position conservatives for 2020. Right now that means making sure we can credibly disassociate ourselves from Trump and Trumpism.

Don't you get it, cpwill. The longer the clock ticks the less likely a "conservative purist" could get elected with whom you'd identify. No "American" politician is going to be invoking Locke or Jefferson in 2024 and onwards (true peak is 2034-38 era, when the process is sealed off for good).

Certainly they won't be if the only philosophy likely to do so has been discredited, turned to infighting, and tossed on the ash heap because we choose to back an odious man who didn't share our principles.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[grantlyon]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

Donald Trump clearly doesn't have any real political opinions. He's saying what he needs to say. He's been very non-committal on a lot of major issues. It doesn't surprise me that he says one thing but that his policies say another thing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

I'm not voting for Johnson at this point. But of course I will critique whichever of the liberal Democrat authoritarians wind up in the White House. By not voting for them, I'm not responsible for them out what they do. But you will be.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I guess being well versed in how judges are picked, I understand why it is so important not to have Hilary picking justices and judges. True, some GOP picks end up sucking but one thing I sort of admire about the Democrats: their judicial picks almost always vote the way their party wanted them to

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

I guess being well versed in how judges are picked...

What was it you were saying about being smug?

I understand why it is so important not to have Hilary picking justices and judges. True, some GOP picks end up sucking but one thing I sort of admire about the Democrats: their judicial picks almost always vote the way their party wanted them to

Cool. I understand that there is going to be a 2020, a 2022, a 2024, a 2026, a 2028, and that these elections together are more important than 2016. When you are attacked on indefensible ground, you shift to a defensible position, or you get wiped out.

I also know that if you blindly vote GOP in the hopes that it will occasionally throw you a scrap... It won't. Because it won't need to. No need to buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

What was it you were saying about being smug?



Cool. I understand that there is going to be a 2020, a 2022, a 2024, a 2026, a 2028, and that these elections together are more important than 2016. When you are attacked on indefensible ground, you shift to a defensible position, or you get wiped out.

I also know that if you blindly vote GOP in the hopes that it will occasionally throw you a scrap... It won't. Because it won't need to. No need to buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

we will put you down as essentially a hilary supporter then.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

we will put you down as essentially a hilary supporter then.

LOL, oh gosh, that fallacy. I've only heard that 238 times, but this iteration has convinced me.

If a vote for someone other than Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote for someone other than Hillary is equally a vote for Trump. So there's your vote for Trump.

I am neither a Hillary supporter, nor a Trump supporter. I don't support liberal authoritarians for President.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His P

LOL, oh gosh, that fallacy. I've only heard that 238 times, but this iteration has convinced me.

If a vote for someone other than Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote for someone other than Hillary is equally a vote for Trump. So there's your vote for Trump.

I am neither a Hillary supporter, nor a Trump supporter. I don't support liberal authoritarians for President.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

so tell me, why is Trump as bad as Hillary. and that is the only question that matters in this 2016 election