Here is reason #1 to vote for Trump

[carpro]

I don’t agree with you either on this comparison. I failed to address it initially, but to say Obama was better is ludicrous, just because he was too bone lazy to get it done, does not mean he was working for pro 2nd in any shape or form.

Obama never had control of the Senate. Couldn't get past the filibuster when they were in the majority. And then he lost his majorities. So, he simply COULDN'T run through his anti gun agenda, and he knew it. But he always talked about wanting to.

Trump could try, if he had such an agenda, but he hasn't tried. He is not anti-gun in any form or fashion. So,intent counts. To ignore that is simply...what did you call it?...Ludicrous.

Ludicrous. That's the word. Better than silly. Thanks!

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Obama never had control of the Senate. Couldn't get past the filibuster when they were in the majority. And then he lost his majorities. So, he simply COULDN'T run through his anti gun agenda, and he knew it. But he always talked about wanting to.

Trump could try, if he had such an agenda, but he hasn't tried. He is not anti-gun in any form or fashion. So,intent counts. To ignore that is simply...what did you call it?...Ludicrous.

Ludicrous. That's the word. Better than silly. Thanks!

What is more damaging to the 2nd Amendment?

Having a philosophy that hates guns, yet accomplishing nothing on that agenda

OR

Having a philosophy that approves of guns, yet banning firearm attachments by executive fiat

I look forward to your response of my "ludicrous" opinion.

Hence, "Trump is worse than his predecessor on guns"

 

[carpro]

What is more damaging to the 2nd Amendment?

Having a philosophy that hates guns, yet accomplishing nothing on that agenda

OR

Having a philosophy that approves of guns, yet banning firearm attachments by executive fiat

I look forward to your response of my "ludicrous" opinion.

Hence, "Trump is worse than his predecessor on guns"

Your "firearm attachment" is simply a throw away issue. Trump knew that. It does absolutely no harm, that is zero harm, to the second Amendment. Another ludicrous statement on your part. A "bump stock" is a gimmick and the 2nd Amendment doesn't address gimmicks. Just guns.

You ludicrous assertions are getting worse. Go ahead. Give us a third one. I can't hardly wait.

 

[Shoostie]

What did Obama do to our guns in the end? Nothing. A lot of talk, no action on the Federal Level, he failed lucky for us.

If Obama had managed to get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court, the First and Second amendments would have been null an void.

 

[Benjamin]

Bump stocks, to me, were a non issue. Couldn't care less that they are now banned.

I don't buy into the Bump-stock slippery-slop fallacy in the least.

And he has signed onto no red flag laws. Why? There hasn't been one that doesn't blatantly violate due process.

Exactly, like WIngman said he's throwing out some bones. I see a need for some type of "Red Flag Law/Extreme Risk Protection Orders" but I also see a lot of room for abuse of such a law and a very rough path to ever get anything established that could overcome the incoming intended abuse by the Left once passed,

Trump's suggestion of the need of Red Flag Laws is kind of like the Left saying they are for the wall but while knowing that their bureaucratic ploys would prevent it from ever happening, - except I don't believe there is nears as much dishonesty behind the acknowledging that we should look into how to deal with crazies waving their guns around.

 

[Benjamin]

If Obama had managed to get Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court, the First and Second amendments would have been null an void.

Ahh, the Left's sadness and despair over the SCOTUS losses and future SCOTUS losses to them to come which is destroying their dreams of voiding the 2nd for generations to come ...brings, -and I'm sorry to take such joy in the pain of their plans being foiled long term

, but their disappointments brings a great warmth to my heart!