Post by: CP on May 20, 2016, 12:11:31 PM
Published May 20, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook44 Twitter355 livefyre Email Print
The National Rifle Association endorsed Donald Trump Friday, ahead of the presumptive Republican presidential nominees address to the group.
Executive Director Chris Cox announced the endorsement as he introduced the billionaire businessman, who was set to speak at the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) leadership forum in Louisville, Ky.
Im officially announcing the NRAs endorsement of Donald Trump for president, Cox said.
The NRA's endorsement comes significantly earlier in the election cycle than previous endorsements by the group. The group did not endorse 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney until October 2012.
However, officials told Fox News ahead of the announcement there is an excitement for Trump among their members that they did not see for Romney or 2008 nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Post by: jrebel on May 20, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
Better than them endorsing Hillary!!
Post by: huntnphool on May 20, 2016, 12:32:31 PM
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 12:36:18 PM
Where is Bean?
Probably on Twitter getting worked up over Trump.
Post by: westsidehntr on May 20, 2016, 12:37:26 PM
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 12:41:23 PM
I don't like Trump but I hate Hillary..........easy choice between the 2. At this point I have no choice but to hope Trump gets in and not Hillary. :twocents:
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 20, 2016, 12:44:31 PM
Post by: CP on May 20, 2016, 01:24:59 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on May 20, 2016, 01:59:37 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 20, 2016, 02:10:21 PM
Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
Post by: Stein on May 20, 2016, 02:45:27 PM
Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 20, 2016, 03:00:44 PM
:yeah:Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
Even if you don't believe Trump and think he's a wildcard, it's still a stretch to make a case more than 50% chance then that he would be anti-gun. Hillary is easily 100% anti on the issue.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 20, 2016, 03:10:03 PM
:yeah:Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
Even if you don't believe Trump and think he's a wildcard, it's still a stretch to make a case more than 50% chance then that he would be anti-gun. Hillary is easily 100% anti on the issue.
How could you make any case he is anti gun after his NRA speach? His kids are avid hunters and gun enthusiasts. Trump is a CC permit holder himself.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 20, 2016, 03:22:01 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 20, 2016, 03:47:28 PM
Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
A third party candidate can get on the ballot in all 50 states. If that happens and no one reaches 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide the next POTUS. I'm sure that's a mystery to Mr. Trump, who doesn't seem to have ever read the constitution. He'll talk about how things that never belonged to him in the first place are being stolen from him.
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 03:55:49 PM
Post by: csaaphill on May 20, 2016, 05:11:34 PM
He still has a past, being chummy with the Clintons, supporting the 94 ban, his issues with eminent domain. I know his platform now is further in line with conservatives. But the guy is still a bit of a wildcard. Even if he's duping folks, I still think it is a weak case to claim he's anti-gun. Yet we know without a doubt that Hillary is.:yeah:
yeah that's one of my fears on him. I know he's supported the assault weapons ban Under Clinton, I also seen where he was for the no gun if your on the no fly list. I know it sounds like commons sense, but people can be put on that list and not even know it. Plus even when they do find out it's Nigh on to impossible to get off, so for that reason early on I was against Trump. I still have my reservations on him, but like you I know for sure Hitlary is 100% against our second amendment so it's a no brainer for me I vote Trump.
Post by: SteelheadTed on May 20, 2016, 05:15:15 PM
Yeah, that's what I really think.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 20, 2016, 05:18:51 PM
I will not vote for him.
Post by: bobcat on May 20, 2016, 05:30:47 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on May 20, 2016, 05:56:05 PM
Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
A third party candidate can get on the ballot in all 50 states. If that happens and no one reaches 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide the next POTUS. I'm sure that's a mystery to Mr. Trump, who doesn't seem to have ever read the constitution. He'll talk about how things that never belonged to him in the first place are being stolen from him.
You sure you don't live in WA anymore? Sounds like you have been hitting the pipe pretty hard if you are hoping for a 3rd party spoiler.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 20, 2016, 05:58:48 PM
Where is Bean?
:hello:
I've been speaking against the sellouts at NRA for years and everybody knows it. Come see me when Gun Owners endorses @Lyin'Trump, who impersonates his own publicist and talks himself up to the media.
We're going to have a president.
It will be one of two people and that person will select the supreme court justice that breaks the 4-4 deadlock.
If gun rights are your issue, the choice is about as easy as it gets. It really is that simple.
A third party candidate can get on the ballot in all 50 states. If that happens and no one reaches 270 electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide the next POTUS. I'm sure that's a mystery to Mr. Trump, who doesn't seem to have ever read the constitution. He'll talk about how things that never belonged to him in the first place are being stolen from him.
You sure you don't live in WA anymore? Sounds like you have been hitting the pipe pretty hard if you are hoping for a 3rd party spoiler.
Lol.... There's plenty of that down south with the illegals running hundreds of pounds over the border
Post by: Alpine Mojo on May 20, 2016, 06:53:25 PM
Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states, but even so the next president will likely be Trump or Clinton.
Likely? Really?
I don't care who endorses him either. I'm voting for Trump regardless of any endorsements he may receive. He's the best presidential candidate we've had in decades. Finally someone willing to tackle the illegal immigration problem. And who will admit that Islamic terrorism is a problem. And yes, he supports the 2nd amendment. It blows my mind that anyone would support Hillary Clinton.
If you don't vote for Trump, no matter what you think or believe, you are supporting Hillary.
Don't think for a second that Hillary has your best interests in mind when it comes to guns and hunting. Why anyone would not understand this is beyond me.
Post by: Thehowler on May 20, 2016, 07:18:25 PM
When Trump gets elected, he will do more for this country than any other president.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 20, 2016, 07:19:49 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 20, 2016, 07:34:26 PM
I think trump supporters need to be prepared to take some of the blame if hillary becomes president. Look at his numbers with Hispanics and Women..... He's going to lose and losing to hillary is really something isn't it?
Do you think any republican candidate would have done well with Hispanics? Anyone who disagrees with illegal immigration is an enemy to the Hispanic community. In my opinion WHO CARES. They can fly their Mexican flag around and protest Trump. That only makes me support him more. Women love trump. It's the feminists who don't like him, but they hate most men anyways. All the women in my family are voting Trump. My step sister graduated from West Point and has a VERY successful career in the Army and she is a Trump supporter. I graduated from UW and my brother from Yale, both supporting him. So much for only uneducated people following Trump. AMERICA FIRST! ITS ABOUT TIME
Post by: csaaphill on May 20, 2016, 07:40:24 PM
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 08:21:31 PM
Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in all 50 states, but even so the next president will likely be Trump or Clinton.
Likely? Really?
Yeah, well about a 99.99999% chance that Hillary or Donald will win. But anything can happen. I actually like Gary Johnson but I'm certain he can't win.
I guess people like Bean Counter are holding out hope that neither one will get the votes necessary and the House will select the president. I'll give that 0.0000001% chance that the House will determine it.
Post by: Alpine Mojo on May 20, 2016, 10:22:19 PM
about a 99.99999% chance that Hillary or Donald will win. But anything can happen.
Are you really that bad at math?
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 10:28:59 PM
Noabout a 99.99999% chance that Hillary or Donald will win. But anything can happen.
Are you really that bad at math?
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 20, 2016, 10:32:45 PM
about a 99.99999% chance that Hillary or Donald will win. But anything can happen.
Are you really that bad at math?
More like 50/50. lol.
Post by: Curly on May 20, 2016, 11:07:46 PM
You may wish to read post #15 again.
Post by: netcoyote on May 24, 2016, 01:40:36 PM
We can't complain about the quality of our politicians if we continue to vote for them. Trump is an egomaniacal, womanizing buffoon and what little regard I had for the NRA has evaporated.
Yeah, that's what I really think.
You would help yourself by reading more information about Trump. It appears you are only getting information from the anti-Trump propaganda sources. Name calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
Post by: baker5150 on May 24, 2016, 01:51:00 PM
We can't complain about the quality of our politicians if we continue to vote for them. Trump is an egomaniacal, womanizing buffoon and what little regard I had for the NRA has evaporated.
Yeah, that's what I really think.
You would help yourself by reading more information about Trump. It appears you are only getting information from the anti-Trump propaganda sources. Name calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
This is the issue I have with most, if not all Anti-Trumpers. I ask why the won't support Trump, and the response is that he is a Racist, or Womanizer. Yet Not a single one can tell me why they think that way. They were told that somewhere, so it must be true.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 24, 2016, 01:58:40 PM
I think most just get the 30 sec Facebook comments that are out of context. I was at a place the other day that had a liberal news channel on...they kept referencing the 'Mexicans are rapists' out of context. Never played the full quote. So, going off the tid-bit, the talking heads were all screaming racism.We can't complain about the quality of our politicians if we continue to vote for them. Trump is an egomaniacal, womanizing buffoon and what little regard I had for the NRA has evaporated.
Yeah, that's what I really think.
You would help yourself by reading more information about Trump. It appears you are only getting information from the anti-Trump propaganda sources. Name calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
This is the issue I have with most, if not all Anti-Trumpers. I ask why the won't support Trump, and the response is that he is a Racist, or Womanizer. Yet Not a single one can tell me why they think that way. They were told that somewhere, so it must be true.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 24, 2016, 02:25:53 PM
We can't complain about the quality of our politicians if we continue to vote for them. Trump is an egomaniacal, womanizing buffoon and what little regard I had for the NRA has evaporated.
Yeah, that's what I really think.
You would help yourself by reading more information about Trump. It appears you are only getting information from the anti-Trump propaganda sources. Name calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
This is the issue I have with most, if not all Anti-Trumpers. I ask why the won't support Trump, and the response is that he is a Racist, or Womanizer. Yet Not a single one can tell me why they think that way. They were told that somewhere, so it must be true.
How about from the words of his own mouth?
Substantive policy issues? How about him campaigning to the LEFT of Hillary Clinton on the economy? How about him being cut from the same cloth on social issues as the Godless & hellbound collectivist Left?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 24, 2016, 02:40:04 PM
BK'd numerous times and proud of it.
Anti assault weapons past.
His comments about McCain are inexcusable.
He can't form a complete sentence.
How's that?
Post by: npaull on May 24, 2016, 02:45:59 PM
Reneging on self-financing his campaign.
Clearly lying about being his own creepy spokesperson.
Clearly lying about his history of being pro-choice.
Clearly lying about his history of being anti-gun.
Self-evidently ignorant of ALL policy, including foreign policy, and PROUD of it.
Utterly refuses to share his tax returns (geeh I wonder why?).
Highly suspicious and suspect claims about veterans fund raising
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-said-he-raised-6-million-for-vets-now-his-campaign-says-it-was-less/2016/05/20/871127a8-1d1f-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html)
I get it that plenty of people hate Hillary Clinton. But HOW IN THE WORLD can anyone think Trump is a trustworthy nominee for president of a dog walking club?
Post by: npaull on May 24, 2016, 02:47:33 PM
Quote
Name calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
How can you say this with a straight face and support Trump? I'm utterly blown away.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 24, 2016, 02:48:38 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 24, 2016, 02:51:59 PM
QuoteName calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
How can you say this with a straight face and support Trump? I'm utterly blown away.
I thought that was hysterical.
Trump has to be the biggest name caller in modern history.
Post by: npaull on May 24, 2016, 02:55:26 PM
Quote
Trump has to be the biggest name caller in modern history.
He has the temperament of an 8 year old. He is the most transparently egomaniacal narcissist I have ever seen (I mean DSM IV narcissist, like an actual psychiatric disorder narcissist). I've never seen such an obviously weak and fragile little ego bloat and bloviate its way to prominence.
Post by: SteelheadTed on May 24, 2016, 05:33:50 PM
QuoteName calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
How can you say this with a straight face and support Trump? I'm utterly blown away.
I was going to point that out but you beat me to it. Trump will be Name Caller-in-Chief.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 24, 2016, 06:08:29 PM
Utterly refuses to share his tax returns (geeh I wonder why?).
Probably because @Lyin'Trump is not worth half of what he brags about. Forbes and a few others estimate his net worth < 50% of his boastful claims.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 24, 2016, 06:13:11 PM
QuoteName calling also does not make a credible policy disagreement statement.
How can you say this with a straight face and support Trump? I'm utterly blown away.
I was going to point that out but you beat me to it. Trump will be Name Caller-in-Chief.
Can you imagine a state of the Union address with trump as President?
MF'ing one Senator after another. Making fun of people's wives, foreign dignitaries etc?
Post by: bobcat on May 24, 2016, 06:15:22 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 24, 2016, 06:26:57 PM
You're correct that there's no line on the tax return, even for a wealthy filer, that simply asks for a tax payers total net worth. However, there are myriad forms that must be attached to a return that give such an overall picture of a filers financial situation that inferring an approximate wealth is not hard to do, such as reports of foreign bank accounts, K-1s partnership and corporations statements of owners equity (ie, who are the significant shareholders and how much do they own?), plus market value of securities at time of excercise of incentive stock options, etc.
Post by: bobcat on May 24, 2016, 06:36:28 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 24, 2016, 08:01:28 PM
Post by: Buckhunter82 on May 24, 2016, 11:17:51 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on May 24, 2016, 11:19:31 PM
Trump is going to destroy Hillary, just like he destroyed the republican establishment. I dont completely trust the guy, but anyone that talks about about Hillary going to prison and calls Bill a rapist, is ok in my book. Who were you supporting bean counter? Lyin Ted?
Last I heard Hillary has 3 million more votes to date than @DraftDodgingDonald, who played sports during his Vietnam medical deferment whilst Captured McCain [the Loser] rotted away in the Hanoi Hilton.
What exactly did Ted lie about?
Post by: Buckhunter82 on May 24, 2016, 11:49:26 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 25, 2016, 12:19:33 AM
I don't care who endorses him either. I'm voting for Trump regardless of any endorsements he may receive. He's the best presidential candidate we've had in decades. Finally someone willing to tackle the illegal immigration problem. And who will admit that Islamic terrorism is a problem. And yes, he supports the 2nd amendment. It blows my mind that anyone would support Hillary Clinton.
EXACTLY :tup:
Post by: Buckhunter82 on May 25, 2016, 12:26:48 AM
What exactly did Ted lie about?
What didnt the fake Constitutionalist/Libertarian/Tea Party candidate lie about? His immigration policies. The delegate process. His Goldman Sachs money. His anti-establishment stance. He wasn't even eligible to be president.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 25, 2016, 08:07:19 AM
What exactly did Ted lie about?
Where to start?
How about his Canadian citizenship, that he didn't know he had?
How about his Senate campaign finance disclosures about which he conveniently forgot to properly disclose terms of his Goldman Sachs and Citibank loans, while courting the Tea Party?
How about his on again, off again, TPP support?
Of course, you know all these things and are simply playing obtuse as if you actually care about a dialogue about such things.
Go put up your Hillary sign already. Nobody is listening.
We get it. A retraction from globalism and free trade that really isn't free trade will hurt your wealthy clients' positions the most, which in turn, must impact the demand for your industry's services.
It must suck for you to have go to bed every night having to reconcile your support Hillary and her support for unrestricted infanticide, just because it might cost a few bucks hit to your bottom line.
Post by: CP on May 25, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
Hillary Clinton on Gun Control
I support Brady Bill and closing the Charleston loophole. (Dec 2015)
Arming more people is not appropriate response to terrorism. (Dec 2015)
Reverse gun manufacturer immunity; let them get sued. (Nov 2015)
Don't shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits:I vote that way. (Oct 2015)
Gun control advocates see Clinton as an ally. (Jun 2015)
Rein in idea that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. (May 2014)
2000: advocate for national gun registry; 2008: backed off. (May 2014)
Balance lawful gun ownership & keeping guns from criminals. (Apr 2008)
Give local police access to federal gun tracking info. (Apr 2008)
Let states & cities determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers. (Jan 2008)
Backed off a national licensing registration plan on guns. (Jan 2008)
Get assault weapons & guns off the street. (Jul 2007)
Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: VA Tech shooter not declared a danger to others. (Apr 2007)
Congress failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run. (Nov 2003)
Keep guns away from people who shouldnt have them. (Sep 2000)
Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs. (Sep 2000)
License and register all handgun sales. (Jun 2000)
Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands. (Jul 1999)
Gun control protects our children. (Jul 1999)
Dont water down sensible gun control legislation. (Jul 1999)
Lock up guns; store ammo separately. (Jun 1999)
Ban kids unsupervised access to guns. (Jun 1999)
Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
Donald Trump on Gun Control
Mass shootings are due to a huge mental health problem. (Jan 2016)
No limits on guns; they save lives. (Jan 2016)
Keep enemies of the state away from guns. (Nov 2015)
Gun-free zones are target practice for sickos. (Oct 2015)
Gun ownership makes US safer, not more dangerous. (Oct 2015)
Mental health more important than gun control. (Oct 2015)
Laws are ineffective in preventing gun violence. (Oct 2015)
Gun violence is inevitable; regulations won't help. (Oct 2015)
Protect the Second Amendment, but address mental health. (Sep 2015)
Take guns from good people & bad people have target practice. (Jul 2015)
A very strong person on the Second Amendment. (Jun 2015)
I am against gun control. (Feb 2011)
Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns. (Jul 2000)
For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check. (Jul 2000)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 25, 2016, 10:30:02 AM
It plainly illustrates just how desperate the reference to one or two bullet points as a Trump negative is.
Post by: CP on May 25, 2016, 11:12:05 AM
A vote for anyone other than Trump is a vote for gun control.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 25, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
I don't care who endorses him either. I'm voting for Trump regardless of any endorsements he may receive.
What if Hillary endorses him? You'd have to admit that would could be a quandary :chuckle:
Post by: netcoyote on May 25, 2016, 12:05:02 PM
I don't care who endorses him either. I'm voting for Trump regardless of any endorsements he may receive.
What if Hillary endorses him? You'd have to admit that would could be a quandary :chuckle:
lol....that has about the same chance of happening as me getting a goat permit!
Post by: Bean Counter on May 25, 2016, 12:46:00 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 25, 2016, 02:56:02 PM
Post by: csaaphill on May 26, 2016, 09:07:22 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 27, 2016, 10:53:21 PM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: csaaphill on May 28, 2016, 01:07:39 AM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 07:21:55 AM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 28, 2016, 07:50:59 AM
Being against Trump means you are with them.
Uh huh.
I've heard that argument before
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 08:22:53 AM
Yes please, ignore everything else I said and focus on that. It's easier.Being against Trump means you are with them.
Uh huh.
I've heard that argument before
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 28, 2016, 09:15:07 AM
Being against Trump means you are with them.
Uh huh.
I've heard that argument before
Were they wearing brown shirts and blindly following someone with bad hair?
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 09:30:48 AM
Brown Shirts? Hmmm. On one side is a group who came to hear a electoral candidate speak. On the other side is SEIU organised groups and other Organized protesters. People protesting with foriegn flags? That's not anti-Trump. It is anti-United States seeking power over American Elections. These groups assault police, distroy property, and assault citizens participants in the electoral process should not go through any of it. Imagine if it were turned around and large groups of white men were attacking Black families and Latinos? (For any reason.) Just imagine that optic.Being against Trump means you are with them.
Uh huh.
I've heard that argument before
Were they wearing brown shirts and blindly following someone with bad hair?
But it is Trump supporters labeled as Fascist Brown Shirts for standing up to the Status Quo and Obama's lawlessness?
Right
I noticed not one word about the book.
Pathetic
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 28, 2016, 09:37:50 AM
Brown Shirts? Hmmm. On one side is a group who came to hear a electoral candidate speak. On the other side is SEIU organised groups and other Organized protesters. People protesting with foriegn flags? That's not anti-Trump. It is anti-United States seeking power over American Elections. These groups assault police, distroy property, and assault citizens participants in the electoral process should not go through any of it. Imagine if it were turned around and large groups of white men were attacking Black families and Latinos? (For any reason.) Just imagine that optic.Being against Trump means you are with them.
Uh huh.
I've heard that argument before
Were they wearing brown shirts and blindly following someone with bad hair?
But it is Trump supporters labeled as Fascist Brown Shirts for standing up to the Status Quo and Obama's lawlessness?
Right
I noticed not one word about the book.
Pathetic
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
you are the one who is forcing your political views on others...
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 11:25:32 AM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 28, 2016, 11:33:53 AM
Yes Jay, I asked if anyone's read a book? It's viciously insulting.
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
No
You said being against trump means you are with "them"
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 11:45:58 AM
Why did I ask if anyone has read "Crippled America?"
Taking a soundbite or a portion of text and making a different narrative is dishonest.
What did the NRA say our our choices regarding the election?
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: jay.sharkbait on May 28, 2016, 11:53:00 AM
Context Jay,
Why did I ask if anyone has read "Crippled America?"
Taking a soundbite or a portion of text and making a different narrative is dishonest.
What did the NRA say our our choices regarding the election?
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
I don't know what the NRA said....I'm not a member
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 12:05:43 PM
For that I'm part of a Fascist movement?
If you are not an NRA member, if you didn't watch the speech regarding the endorsement, if you haven't read the book "Crippled America" that discusses these issues in more detail, is it possible that references to my "Brownshirt" might be a little misplaced?
Maybe the "us vs. them" context is in line even with the thread?
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on May 28, 2016, 12:20:45 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 28, 2016, 12:34:10 PM
Hey Wenatcheejay, do you by any chance work for Verizon or Samsung? :chuckle:I get paid $.01 for each thought.
Post by: huntnphool on May 28, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
Hey Wenatcheejay, do you by any chance work for Verizon or Samsung? :chuckle:I get paid $.01 for each thought.
:chuckle: :tup:
Post by: csaaphill on May 28, 2016, 08:41:01 PM
:chuckle:Hey Wenatcheejay, do you by any chance work for Verizon or Samsung? :chuckle:I get paid $.01 for each thought.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 28, 2016, 09:34:18 PM
https://twitter.com/ChristiChat/status/736301188237385728
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 28, 2016, 10:00:44 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjfeB2eXEAEqne0.jpg)
https://twitter.com/ChristiChat/status/736301188237385728
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: csaaphill on May 29, 2016, 08:41:38 PM
Post by: Curly on May 31, 2016, 09:59:36 AM
I do agree with the permit being good for all 50 states, but the second amendment should be our permit; No Govt permission needed. :twocents:
:yeah:
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 12:28:46 PM
Be careful what you wish for :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
Post by: Curly on May 31, 2016, 12:48:40 PM
I do also believe that it should be state's rights issue. I like Arizona's conceal carry laws best of any state's laws I'm aware of.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 12:52:13 PM
AZ's law for CCW is great but several states have it. There's also the ancillary laws for the aftermath of a shooting that make our state great. If you pop someone here, the magical encantation to the 911 operator/responding LEO is as follows: "I was the victim of a crime, I have my attacker in custody, I need police and EMS, I want to speak to an attorney." By making the affirmative statement of self defense ("I was the victim of a crime"), it is VERY hard for a prostitutor to even file charges a CCWer.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2016, 01:05:03 PM
:bash: :bash: :bash: The states attorneys general can work out reciprocity and recognition agreements at will. The only argument to be made in favor of federalizing CCW laws, which are currently ran by the states, is for simplicity and laziness.
Be careful what you wish for :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
Some people would just refer to that as federal enforcement of constitutional protections. Why should we have to wait on each state's AG or a yet-to-materialize SCOTUS recognition that the 2A provides adequate justification for reciprocity?
It seems like consistent protection of individual liberties is a central tenet of republicanism (the philosophy, not the party).
Where's the beef?
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 01:22:55 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2016, 01:32:23 PM
But that is how our republic is set up, where the constitution empowers the federal government to set minimum protection of liberties. States are free to design greater protections.
But instead, in re 2A, the states are all over the map with greater or less protections.
It seems like a perfect role for the federal government to set and enforce minimum consistent standards.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 01:37:42 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/e26v8.jpg)
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 31, 2016, 01:45:12 PM
:bash: :bash: :bash: The states attorneys general can work out reciprocity and recognition agreements at will. The only argument to be made in favor of federalizing CCW laws, which are currently ran by the states, is for simplicity and laziness.Agreed.
Be careful what you wish for :bdid: :bdid: :bdid:
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: Wenatcheejay on May 31, 2016, 01:46:46 PM
Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 01:47:34 PM
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.
Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. ...
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2016, 02:19:49 PM
Except that it doesn't. The Bill of Rights only pertained to the federal government. That was by the Framers design. and reaffirmed in landmark court cases 50 and 100 years after our nations founding. See Barron v. Baltimore and the Cruikshank case. It took 150 years for Incorporation to come about.
Except that what doesn't?
I don't know how you can say the framers intended something based on court cases decided 50-100 years after the fact, which are subsequently overruled 50 years after that. It may be that incorporation against the states has, historically, been as a resort to the 14th Amendment.
But that does not mean that it was necessarily the case that 1A, etc. were not intended as protections of liberty against the states, or that the same result could not be reached by appeals to the founders intent or other means. It's just that as a matter of historical jurisprudence, courts took the 14th Amendment route.
I don't suppose that you trying to tell me that in the interim between our nation's founding and Barron that the founders intended that citizens of the separate states had no recourse to the 1A for infringement of religious freedoms by overzealous states. The Federalists thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. As it turns out, the Federalist were wrong.
Mostly you are confusing the founders' intent with the need for judicial certainty in the context of uncertain language and unforseeable circumstances that would arise in the subsequent centuries after drafting. The courts craft a legal justification for applying the Bill of Rights against the States, which is intended to have general and subsequent applicability (stare decisis). That does not mean a state, until such a point where each individual liberty is specifically and judicially enforced against a state's usurpation, was intended by the founders to run roughshod over U.S. citizens constitutionally protected liberties. That would be asinine.
As we found out in Heller, the 2A right was legally recognized as it practically always was regarded, as an individual right. It did not mean that in the preceding 200 years that the founders ever intended it to be anything else.
You are welcome.
(https://i.imgflip.com/e26v8.jpg)
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2016, 02:20:26 PM
Bean's right on this.
Don't encourage him. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on May 31, 2016, 02:24:35 PM
:)
Post by: huntnphool on May 31, 2016, 02:31:44 PM
Bean's right on this.
Don't encourage him. :chuckle:
:chuckle:
Post by: Lucky1 on May 31, 2016, 04:12:25 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.htmlThe last paragraph in the link kind of explains how things have changed regarding states rights since the decision.
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.
Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. ...
Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture ("the common law"). The Supreme Court's ruling in Barron prevailed in federal courts, however, until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War. Gradually since then, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, which bans states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," as also incorporating -- or applying -- most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states, including the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment. Modern constitutional law prohibits state governments from taking private property without just compensation.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 31, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
What Flounderz actually said was:
...But that is how our republic is set up, where the constitution empowers the federal government to set minimum protection of liberties. States are free to design greater protections. ....
That is how we work now, since incorporation, but it is NOT how we were "set up" or designed as a federalist republic.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2016, 10:20:55 PM
You are correct, Lucky. Or just lucky :chuckle:
What Flounderz actually said was:...But that is how our republic is set up, where the constitution empowers the federal government to set minimum protection of liberties. States are free to design greater protections. ....
That is how we work now, since incorporation, but it is NOT how we were "set up" or designed as a federalist republic.
Wrong again.
Quote
However, in spite of the Court's [Barron] ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture ("the common law")
Again you confuse ever-changing federal jurisprudence with founders' intent or our constitutional structure of government. Let me say it another way, the fact that a court would apply the 2A against a state through the legal process of incorporation says nothing about what the founders intended or how our system of government is designed.
It is telling that States, pre-Barron, felt that the Constitution (Bill of Rights) restricted their activity against its citizens, and it was only after the Barron ruling that States had any reason to feel differently, with the ultimate result being the explicit expression of certain limitations on States in the 14th Amendment.
In effect, and in subsequent jurisprudence, you find that the 14th Amendment essentially codifies the common understanding prior to Barron, that is, that the Bill of rights limits State and local governments from infringing citizens' individual liberties.
Never once until modern times was the right to keep and bear arms thought to be a collective State's right. And it was only posited to be such in modern times, post hoc, to justify states' historical infringements. We don't need Heller to understand that the 2A is an individual right and that the founders would most certainly believe it to be so, with the 2A explicitly protecting such an individual right.
The concept of fundamental individual liberties (like the 2A) is merely a judicial construct that courts use to distinguish what levels of judicial scrutiny they should apply to restrictions on those individual liberties. It likely mattered not to the founders and their intents that there would arise an artificial jurisprudential distinction some 150+ years later used to determine which liberties are more protected than others. They likely, as did the states at the time pre-and-post-Barron, presumed that the Bill of Rights also applied to the States. What would a federally protected right be worth, if, in any State, a majority could tyrannize a politically disfavored minority?
You've done a lot of reading but not a lot of thinking, it appears.
Post by: Bean Counter on June 01, 2016, 03:48:42 AM
In effect, and in subsequent jurisprudence, you find that the 14th Amendment essentially codifies the common understanding prior to Barron, that is, that the Bill of rights limits State and local governments from infringing citizens' individual liberties.
Sorry to see you embarrass yourself, but the aforementioned Cruikshank case was rendered after the 14th Amendment's adoption, and as it happened dealt with an issue of the 2nd Amendment.
Justice Waite's opinion read in part: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
I'd like to suggest starting back with the Federalist Papers (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers), if you want to try internet gotcha games.
#TrumpLovesPoorlyEducated