April 30, 2016

Trump's 2A Position

Trump comes out with a very strong, supportive position on 2nd Amendment rights. From The Conservative Tribune:
“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 position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.
The complete position paper is here on his website.


Doom said...

The right, or protection of the right, actually has very little to do with firearms. It is the right of self-defense. The tools required to do that happen, now, to be firearms. The real reason to be against the right to self-defense, thus firearm ownership, is to make all abiding to a few. I used to wonder why the poor would be against self defense. What you find is that the poor aren't, except when the price makes acquisition impossible. And that many of the poor are poor because of poor choices, and thus criminal. A criminal is very much against self defense. Those fed by criminals, likewise, are against self defense.

It really isn't a firearm issue, not at it's roots. On the good side, gun rights, and laws supporting self-defense (stand your ground, castle doctrine, and other) are getting stronger and spreading. Even more, knives are becoming a topic that is being pushed. Here, for example, even switchblades are legal, and there is no length limit (if a knife is defined as other than a sword by real, measurable, lengths). Now, if you abuse your rights, it can and will be held against you in a court of law. If you are a regular fighter, and decide to carry a blade for that purpose... it'll get you. If you are just a smuck who typically carries that, and are happened upon by violence and use, you will be just fine.

Gorges Smythe said...

Personally, Doom, I'd be for sword rights. Washington and his ilk often had personal swords for protection, as well as their sidearms. They were certainly a far more civilized lot than what we have today.

Doom said...

I think, probably, you can carry a sword here. Just don't try to conceal it, I do believe. Which is fair enough. Or, at least, it wouldn't make sense for it to be legal to strap an ak, ar, or shotgun over your shoulder, only to be arrested for carrying a sword at your hip.

The problem with swords is that I, even with a bad heart, overweight, and very ill for a long time, can still overwhelm most people with such a piece. Firearms are the equalizer that swords aren't. And that, my friend, I do believe, is the different between a feudal system and a freer system such as what we have (or had). Heck, a little girl in the right, with a simple firearm, can make sure I, as a giant, can't just do as I please. It's a... righteous form of democracy that seems to be more true than the ballot box.