|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Trump Supports The 2A more Strongly than Any Previous Republican Nominee
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There is some truth in that. Donald Trump does not have a legislative record to show actions to back up his words. But words have meanings. If a nominee is unwilling to give us words in support of the Second Amendment, why should we believe that he will go to bat for us in the legislature, in the executive branch, or in the courts? If the nominee is too concerned with being politically correct when running for office, even in the primary, why should we believe that they will be willing to take more heat while in office, facing re-election, or under media pressure?
If a nominee will not specifically defend the Second Amendment verbally and in writing before being elected, why would we expect them to do so afterwards? |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(6/10/2016)
|
Trump has been more publicly vocal about supporting gun right than ANY previous democrap or republican nominee.
Even the supposedly most ardent past 2A supporter has only paid lip service to elitist Fudds and sportsmen.
None of them have come out in support of concealed carry, self-defense or even broached the subject of the real purpose of 2A like Trump has. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
