Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[Little-Acorn]

Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry


Actually, the President doesn't need any more legislation to be passed by Congress, before he permits all responsible adults to carry concealed.

The 2nd amendment is the Supreme Law of the Land. And any Federal or State laws that contradict it, are superseded by it.

{The liberal fanatics just hate it when that happens. )

If the President (the current one, next one, or any other) were to issue an Executive Order saying that all citizens could carry concealed weapons, this would be a perfectly legitimate use of an Executive Order: The President is merely doing his job, which is to issue orders that will carry out laws that are already on the books.

The 2nd amendment is already on the books. Has been for a long time, in fact. And an EO by a President declaring that people can carry concealed weapons nationwide, is merely implementing what has already been passed and enacted into law... which is exactly the correct use of an Executive Order.

 

[Vigilante]

A perfect example of a brain dead DumboRAT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just because it is called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it was an actual Bill.

See what I mean? The liberals are saying the silliest, most irrelevant things they can, trying to pretend they have some point.

Who said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."?

Whoever it was, it wasn't the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) that said it. And they are the only ones that count.

Yeah whatever, it was just the Majority Opinion of the branch of government that interprets the Constitution and it's Amendments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Political decisions by the Supremes are binding but that doesn't make it right. It should clue one in that they often split on ideological lines. Conservative justices tend to read the words as they are. Liberals interpret what they want into them, ala the "living breathing document".

 

[Timmy]

States decide who qualifies for carry licenses .

Like massachusetts wants to rely on Texas selection process . "U have a pulse ? Here's your license !"

 

[Timmy]

A perfect example of a brain dead DumboRAT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

How about conservatives ? Preach hate and distrust for all things government . Unless it's the police busting on brown faces . Then everything they do is fine!

 

[Vigilante]

States decide who qualifies for carry licenses .

Like massachusetts wants to rely on Texas selection process . "U have a pulse ? Here's your license !"

And you problem with that...you think the people in Mass. aren't as capable as Texans to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights?

 

[Vigilante]

A perfect example of a brain dead DumboRAT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

How about conservatives ? Preach hate and distrust for all things government . Unless it's the police busting on brown faces . Then everything they do is fine!

Difference is I didn't lie, and your black ass did!

 

[AceRothstein]

I bet 2aguy got hard when he saw this thread.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just because it is called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it was an actual Bill.

See what I mean? The liberals are saying the silliest, most irrelevant things they can, trying to pretend they have some point.

Who said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."?

Whoever it was, it wasn't the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) that said it. And they are the only ones that count.

Yeah whatever, it was just the Majority Opinion of the branch of government that interprets the Constitution and it's Amendments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Political decisions by the Supremes are binding but that doesn't make it right. It should clue one in that they often split on ideological lines. Conservative justices tend to read the words as they are. Liberals interpret what they want into them, ala the "living breathing document".

So the SC Justice who wrote this "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." was a liberal?

Where in the 2nd does it say this right is not unlimited?

 

[Iceweasel]

Just because it is called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it was an actual Bill.

See what I mean? The liberals are saying the silliest, most irrelevant things they can, trying to pretend they have some point.

Who said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."?

Whoever it was, it wasn't the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) that said it. And they are the only ones that count.

Yeah whatever, it was just the Majority Opinion of the branch of government that interprets the Constitution and it's Amendments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Political decisions by the Supremes are binding but that doesn't make it right. It should clue one in that they often split on ideological lines. Conservative justices tend to read the words as they are. Liberals interpret what they want into them, ala the "living breathing document".

So the SC Justice who wrote this "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." was a liberal?

Where in the 2nd does it say this right is not unlimited?

No right is unlimited, that says nothing. The crying fire in a movie theater is the classic argument against unlimited free speech.

But that isn't what we are talking about. A right is being suppressed in various states for no reason except fear and prejudice from the elites. My ccw hurts no one.

 

[whitehall]

Actually what he said is that he would push to make concealed carry permits available nationwide. The operative word is "permit" which indicates special regulations and training. That's pretty much the case anyway although the requirements vary.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just because it is called the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it was an actual Bill.

See what I mean? The liberals are saying the silliest, most irrelevant things they can, trying to pretend they have some point.

Who said, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."?

Whoever it was, it wasn't the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) that said it. And they are the only ones that count.

Yeah whatever, it was just the Majority Opinion of the branch of government that interprets the Constitution and it's Amendments.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Political decisions by the Supremes are binding but that doesn't make it right. It should clue one in that they often split on ideological lines. Conservative justices tend to read the words as they are. Liberals interpret what they want into them, ala the "living breathing document".

So the SC Justice who wrote this "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." was a liberal?

Where in the 2nd does it say this right is not unlimited?

No right is unlimited, that says nothing. The crying fire in a movie theater is the classic argument against unlimited free speech.

But that isn't what we are talking about. A right is being suppressed in various states for no reason except fear and prejudice from the elites. My ccw hurts no one.

There is no CC right in the 2nd Amendment being suppressed. States are within their rights to allow CC permits, but any federal law or EO forcing states to permit CC would face serious challenges in the courts.

 

[Timmy]

States decide who qualifies for carry licenses .

Like massachusetts wants to rely on Texas selection process . "U have a pulse ? Here's your license !"

And you problem with that...you think the people in Mass. aren't as capable as Texans to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Mass carry law is pretty liberal . We just have stringent license requirements.

 

[Rustic]

Sure to make the left's heads spin and explode...and will play well with the millions of gun owners...who vote

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “failure.”

It’s not a departure from what he’s said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.
“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump touted.

Trump has apparently had a handgun permit for years; a 1987 Associated Press story said he had one at the time.

The real estate magnate called for expanding mental health treatment, saying that people with mental health issues who are violent must be off the street “before they can terrorize our communities.” Trump said the issue has been ignored.
“All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored,” Trump said. “And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen.”

That deafening roar is the sound of the owners of 300 million American firearms owners cheering. And by the way…they vote.

Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Why not, Firearms don't kill... People kill people.
Buy more guns and ammo...

 

[Rustic]

Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry
...so every nut job in the country will have one too. Shoot outs by the thousands every day. More innocent bystanders will be killed than nut jobs...ten to one.
Trump's ideas to make America great are right off the funny farm!

Tissue?

 

[Vigilante]

States decide who qualifies for carry licenses .

Like massachusetts wants to rely on Texas selection process . "U have a pulse ? Here's your license !"

And you problem with that...you think the people in Mass. aren't as capable as Texans to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Mass carry law is pretty liberal . We just have stringent license requirements.

Liberal???...Try your Constitutional rights...do you see any MODIFIERS in the Constitution to your right to own, and carry a firearm?...If so please quote them!

 

[kaz]

A perfect example of a brain dead DumboRAT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

How about conservatives ? Preach hate and distrust for all things government . Unless it's the police busting on brown faces . Then everything they do is fine!

The police you want to be the only ones to have guns. Why do you hate Negroes again?

 

[Timmy]

States decide who qualifies for carry licenses .

Like massachusetts wants to rely on Texas selection process . "U have a pulse ? Here's your license !"

And you problem with that...you think the people in Mass. aren't as capable as Texans to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Mass carry law is pretty liberal . We just have stringent license requirements.

Liberal???...Try your Constitutional rights...do you see any MODIFIERS in the Constitution to your right to own, and carry a firearm?...If so please quote them!

Yeah, that whole "regulated milita " part yall ignore all the time .

Do u think guns should be avialable out of vending machines ???

 

[Timmy]

A perfect example of a brain dead DumboRAT ABOUT GUN CONTROL.

How about conservatives ? Preach hate and distrust for all things government . Unless it's the police busting on brown faces . Then everything they do is fine!

The police you want to be the only ones to have guns. Why do you hate Negroes again?

I've never said that . I'm all for personal gun ownership . Just cause someone is pro gun control doesn't mean they want to ban all guns. Geeez.

 

[2aguy]

How is this panic......can't wait for him to pass it......it is a time for rejoicing when he does...the left is panicking...

So you can't wait for the big central federal government to start imposing its will on the states under the imperial president Trump...

...okay...

Yeah......just like they imposed voting rights on the democrats in the South......getting states to obey the Bill of Rights is not a big central governnment.....that is called holding it's end of the Constitution....

No, it's called you liking the federal government's power when it advances your personal agenda, and hating it when it doesn't.

No twit....it is the federal government obeying the Constitution.....not doing whatever the left wants it to do and then not doing what it is supposed to be doing....