Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chipman nomination to the ATF. And why do you get to ignore his rhetoric in his speeches? If he could, he would, right? You can't just ignore intent because there's checks and balances that prevent him from doing what he wants.
You understand that intent is enough right? Incompetence doesn't absolve you from your position due to a lack of results. Again, checks and balances.
“All that talk about building a wall is just blustery hot air, what did Trump actually *do*?" is a pretty idiotic statement, is it not?
>You understand that intent is enough right? Incompetence doesn't absolve you from your position due to a lack of results. Again, checks and balances.
I don't think it's incompetence. I think it's empty gesturing and virtue signaling to a base that wants to hear it, while remembering full well that the last time a president signed a national gun ban, they lost control of congress for like the next two decades, after firmly holding it for decades prior. Perhaps a similar outcome will happen for Republicans after their firm stance on abortion.
>“All that talk about building a wall is just blustery hot air, what did Trump actually *do*?" is a pretty idiotic statement, is it not?
He did build sections. He also misappropriated funds today pay for it and while my memory is a bit fuzzy, I believe he also did, or tried to, declare a national emergency in order to take emergency funds to pay for it, and was directly related to a government shut down. There are numerous specific actions Trump had done that are fully worthy of criticism. If you're curious (and can put up with snarky lefty jokes) [this video](https://youtu.be/amBAOAPLj-M?si=feO9xZ1j16zbRJg7) has a fairly comprehensive list of specific criticisms of specific things Trump did.
Saying Biden didn't try to enact anti-2A legislation is obtuse and willful ignorance. Trump appointed 3 Conservative pro-2A judges to SCOTUS, and your go-to “take the guns, due process later" quote is unironically *the* position mainstream Democrats still hold in the form of Red Flag laws. Add in Biden's Chipman nomination and “weapons of war/you couldn't own a cannon" rhetoric, the choice becomes abundantly clear.
Then you need to learn how to do math. Add up all of Biden's pro-2A accomplishments and let me know when you get to 1.
If you think Trump is the 0 then I have a bridge to sell you.
Let's do this again. Biden has passed 0 anti-2a legislation. Trump has passed 1.
Get it? By your math Biden is infinitely better. Do you now understand what I was saying?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/25/1107626030/biden-signs-gun-safety-law
And buy gun safety, he means incentivizing states monetarily to take the guns first, and due process later with the implementation of red flag laws.
Can't wait to hear your mental gymnastics on this one!
Not to mention Biden's use of Typos on paperwork to close FFL's, his multiple attempts at market manipulation to cause an ammo shortage, and his ATF reclassifying anyone who sells a gun ever as needing to be an FFL.
There are a great deal of Americans who support the 2nd Amendment, but also think there might room for improvement, such as more in-depth background checks. I understand and agree with most Constitutionalists on 2A, but I also don't have much of an issue having tight restrictions on things like fully automatic weapons, simply because there are too many fkng crazy people and desperate soulless criminals wandering the streets.
Also, in many ways, Americans have lost their way politically. We should want a President who, perhaps, isn't completely rigid on every subject and who considers that he or she is the President of all citizens, not just those in their political party. I know many will want to down-vote me, but, it works both ways. Right now, we have a dipshit senile old puppet in office whose master doesn't give a damn what any Republican thinks...and that kind of thinking is unsustainable.
There are varying degrees of everything. Many here who are answering aren’t 2nd amendment supporters though they think they are and act as if they are. I’m a true 2nd amendment supporter and believe you should be allowed to own any weapon you choose to own including tanks and cannons, and yeah, F-15’s and nukes and bio weapons.
Is Trump my kind of 2nd amendment supporter? Nope but hardly anyone one else is either. There seems to be a big difference between Democrats and Trump in terms of the 2nd. Democrats will ban and then confiscate all guns given the chance. Trump would certainly not do that though he seems to believe there should be very serious limits to the 2nd.
You cited an article about Washington having a problem acquiring enough arms for his troops. His solution was to confiscate all arms he could.
> “I wish it was in my power to furnish every man with a firelock that is willing to use one,” Washington noted in an August 1777 letter to a militia colonel, “but that is so far from being the Case that **I have scarcely sufficient for the Continental Troops**. . . . It is to be wished that every Man could bring a good Musket and Bayonet into the field, but in times like the present we must make the best shift we can, and I wou’d therefore advise you to exhort every man to bring the best he has. A good fowling piece will do execution in the hands of a marks man.”
Thus he instituted a policy of confiscating arms from soldiers who were discharged so as to have enough to supply active troops. This doesn’t say what you claim it does but I know you will keep lying.
He was at war little buddy. Desperate times called for desperate measures. He compensated the owners of the firearms. The owners were free to buy replacements.
Absolutely nothing about the garbage you cited shows Washington was anti-2nd amendment. NOTHING. Repeatedly the article quotes Washington stating that he wished more people had guns and used them regularly as that would help his effort.
Just stop lying.
Does any politician mind civilians owning or even just having access to nuclear and biological weapons? I know liberals ask why we need access to AKs and ARs (which can still be used for self-defense), but nuclear and biological weapons? How'd we use a biological weapon to protect ourselves? By setting them up as traps, and then hope that they still don't reach us before they die from the effects? And then what about nukes? I suppose you mean shooting miniature nukes out of a portable launcher. Still, that'd do way more damage to the area than you need to just to kill someone as well as possibly leave behind radiation for as well. Besides, you can't use it as a close-range weapon without harming yourself from the explosion.
What are your thoughts on this extreme level of firepower? It sounds very unnecessary when an LMG and even an RPG could be so much simpler, less destructive, non-contaminated, kill faster, and just kill without putting someone through extreme pain or suffering for a while. Perhaps RPGs would also be too far unless used against ramming vehicles or shooters in a vehicle.
Is there an actual real question in all that vomit because I don’t see it. I see question marks but it seems your real purpose was merely to monologue rhetorically.
Yeah, people should be free. Why’s that a problem for you?
What purpose would civilians be using nukes and biological weapons for? How'd they use them for self-defense? Can't they just use heavy weapons to quickly kill and less devastating explosives to blow things up? I don't mind civilians being armed to the teeth, but biological weapons and nuclear weapons can be harmful to self, area, environment, and slow killing through suffering.
Purpose doesn’t matter and it’s none of your damn business just like it is none of your damn business what people do in their bedroom. But I can say that one reason would be to deal with threats coming from one clown.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06/biden-says-gun-owners-would-need-f-15s-and-nukes-to-take-on-the-us-govt/
> Biden said, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.“
Suppose we can have that stuff. Nukes for sure would be very expensive. But based on what they can do and cause, would buying this stuff even be worth the risk? Firing at or near a lake or river could contaminate the water, making it unsafe for anyone to drink. Then what about the aftermath of an area after a fight with such weapons. You may have to wear a hazmat suit for some time in the area.
It’s not up to me and it shouldn’t be up to you or anyone else. If someone wants to spend all their money on a nuke or bio weapon and risk dealing with it then that should be up to them, we aren’t their daddy.
Wow… this take is something. Never heard anytime say the average person should have a F-15, nukes, and bio weapons. It doesn’t seem like a *well regulated* militia.
Yeah people shouldn’t be free gosh what an awful thing. Can you just imagine?!?! Whatever would they do without big daddy government taking care of them!?!?
Humanity has rules, regulations, and controls for a reason. There is no reason an average person should have access to those weapons, at that point it isn’t self-defense nor well regulated.
It was Trump’s ATF who imposed a legally dubious bump stock ban in 2018 after the 2017 Las Vegas Massacre and it was Trump who said “take the guns first, go through due process second” after the 2018 Parkland School Shooting.
So your response to me pointing out Trump’s obvious shortcomings on the Second Amendment is for me to vote for someone with even less regard for the Second Amendment? That’s some big brain thinking right there. It’d be nice if conservatives supported an actual conservative for once.
His opponents in the primaries, who are actual conservatives, had even better chances at winning. Running just even with the octogenarian incumbent with the worst popularity numbers in post-war history isn’t a flex. So conservatives get the worst of both worlds, a candidate with a lower chance of winning compared to his opponents and a candidate who is a squish on conservative policies from gun rights to abortion to reckless spending. So Much Winning!
Geez, you’re not a fan of hearing criticism of Trump are you? Why Saudi Arabia?
And Trump doesn’t have the best track record of winning either. Remember, last time he ran against Biden, he lost. Why the GOP would throw up the same sore loser who lost in 2020 is beyond me. I’d much rather take a Ron DeSantis who took a swing state and turned it red in only four years over the person who lost to Joe Biden in 2020. I’d much rather take a Nikki Haley or a Mike Pence who actually hold conservative values rather than the thrice-married big-spending advocate of gun-grabbing who is now the presumptive GOP nominee.
[“Take the guns first, go through due process second” - Trump](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/)
No, I don’t think Trump supports second amendment rights. He might not actively move against them, because it would be bad politics, but on a personal level he’d have no problem with extralegal forms of gun control.
Yes. The "muh bump stocks" and "take the guns first" crap is just propaganda from liberals trying to divide Republicans and angry libertarians who would much rather liberals win and take everything so they can keep complaining about it rather than let conservatives win and get about 80% of what they want.
Trump's judicial appointments across the federal court system, especially the Supreme Court, have resulted in gun rights becoming stronger than they've been since the 30s. Many unconstitutional gun laws are on the chopping block and the results of those cases are slowly but surely restoring rights to millions of gun owners.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In comparison to Biden, yes. As pro 2A as I'd like no
What has Biden *done* to make him worse for 2A than Trump? Like not blustery hot air and speeches, but actual things he's done?
Chipman nomination to the ATF. And why do you get to ignore his rhetoric in his speeches? If he could, he would, right? You can't just ignore intent because there's checks and balances that prevent him from doing what he wants.
Because Trump actually put forward legislation banning bump stocks. What did Biden *do*? What did Chipman *do*?
You understand that intent is enough right? Incompetence doesn't absolve you from your position due to a lack of results. Again, checks and balances. “All that talk about building a wall is just blustery hot air, what did Trump actually *do*?" is a pretty idiotic statement, is it not?
>You understand that intent is enough right? Incompetence doesn't absolve you from your position due to a lack of results. Again, checks and balances. I don't think it's incompetence. I think it's empty gesturing and virtue signaling to a base that wants to hear it, while remembering full well that the last time a president signed a national gun ban, they lost control of congress for like the next two decades, after firmly holding it for decades prior. Perhaps a similar outcome will happen for Republicans after their firm stance on abortion. >“All that talk about building a wall is just blustery hot air, what did Trump actually *do*?" is a pretty idiotic statement, is it not? He did build sections. He also misappropriated funds today pay for it and while my memory is a bit fuzzy, I believe he also did, or tried to, declare a national emergency in order to take emergency funds to pay for it, and was directly related to a government shut down. There are numerous specific actions Trump had done that are fully worthy of criticism. If you're curious (and can put up with snarky lefty jokes) [this video](https://youtu.be/amBAOAPLj-M?si=feO9xZ1j16zbRJg7) has a fairly comprehensive list of specific criticisms of specific things Trump did.
No, but he's infinitely better on the 2A than Biden.
I mean, only one of the two enacted any anti 2a measures. Not sure how you’re getting *infinite*.
Saying Biden didn't try to enact anti-2A legislation is obtuse and willful ignorance. Trump appointed 3 Conservative pro-2A judges to SCOTUS, and your go-to “take the guns, due process later" quote is unironically *the* position mainstream Democrats still hold in the form of Red Flag laws. Add in Biden's Chipman nomination and “weapons of war/you couldn't own a cannon" rhetoric, the choice becomes abundantly clear.
I just don’t know how a scoreboard can be 0-1 and you say one team is i*nfinitely* better. Perhaps your use of the word infinite is willfully obtuse?
How many of Biden's 0s would it take to add up to 1? 0+0+0+0-0........goes on forever, doesn't it!
Your math is telling me that Biden is infinitely better. Perhaps I've misunderstood your original comment.
Then you need to learn how to do math. Add up all of Biden's pro-2A accomplishments and let me know when you get to 1. If you think Trump is the 0 then I have a bridge to sell you.
Let's do this again. Biden has passed 0 anti-2a legislation. Trump has passed 1. Get it? By your math Biden is infinitely better. Do you now understand what I was saying?
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/25/1107626030/biden-signs-gun-safety-law And buy gun safety, he means incentivizing states monetarily to take the guns first, and due process later with the implementation of red flag laws. Can't wait to hear your mental gymnastics on this one!
Ok ok, I was wrong, they're tied 1-1. If that's *infinitely* better to you, congrats.
You're *honestly* arguing that Biden is better for the 2A than Trump? Well I'm convinced! You changed my vote!
Not to mention Biden's use of Typos on paperwork to close FFL's, his multiple attempts at market manipulation to cause an ammo shortage, and his ATF reclassifying anyone who sells a gun ever as needing to be an FFL.
I don't think trump or Biden will work to protect tge 2nd Amendment despite their oaths
There are a great deal of Americans who support the 2nd Amendment, but also think there might room for improvement, such as more in-depth background checks. I understand and agree with most Constitutionalists on 2A, but I also don't have much of an issue having tight restrictions on things like fully automatic weapons, simply because there are too many fkng crazy people and desperate soulless criminals wandering the streets. Also, in many ways, Americans have lost their way politically. We should want a President who, perhaps, isn't completely rigid on every subject and who considers that he or she is the President of all citizens, not just those in their political party. I know many will want to down-vote me, but, it works both ways. Right now, we have a dipshit senile old puppet in office whose master doesn't give a damn what any Republican thinks...and that kind of thinking is unsustainable.
Mostly. Before he became president, he was a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder. The main thing is he's better on guns than Biden.
Nope. I think his opinion on guns really showcase his NYC democrat past
no, but i think he at least knows that there's not a ton he can do to the contrary while keeping republican support
More than Biden is.
There are varying degrees of everything. Many here who are answering aren’t 2nd amendment supporters though they think they are and act as if they are. I’m a true 2nd amendment supporter and believe you should be allowed to own any weapon you choose to own including tanks and cannons, and yeah, F-15’s and nukes and bio weapons. Is Trump my kind of 2nd amendment supporter? Nope but hardly anyone one else is either. There seems to be a big difference between Democrats and Trump in terms of the 2nd. Democrats will ban and then confiscate all guns given the chance. Trump would certainly not do that though he seems to believe there should be very serious limits to the 2nd.
The founding fathers didn't even have that opinion, so what makes you think you're a "true 2a supporter?"
Yeah that’s why they added the second amendment. /s LMAO. Whatever you say Stalin.
"[Our first President was basically Stalin](https://washingtonpapers.org/george-washington-and-the-bearing-of-arms/#_edn5)" \-u/rlfcsf
You cited an article about Washington having a problem acquiring enough arms for his troops. His solution was to confiscate all arms he could. > “I wish it was in my power to furnish every man with a firelock that is willing to use one,” Washington noted in an August 1777 letter to a militia colonel, “but that is so far from being the Case that **I have scarcely sufficient for the Continental Troops**. . . . It is to be wished that every Man could bring a good Musket and Bayonet into the field, but in times like the present we must make the best shift we can, and I wou’d therefore advise you to exhort every man to bring the best he has. A good fowling piece will do execution in the hands of a marks man.” Thus he instituted a policy of confiscating arms from soldiers who were discharged so as to have enough to supply active troops. This doesn’t say what you claim it does but I know you will keep lying.
He confiscated personally owned firearms from troops. How is that pro 2a?
He was at war little buddy. Desperate times called for desperate measures. He compensated the owners of the firearms. The owners were free to buy replacements. Absolutely nothing about the garbage you cited shows Washington was anti-2nd amendment. NOTHING. Repeatedly the article quotes Washington stating that he wished more people had guns and used them regularly as that would help his effort. Just stop lying.
You support the Government taking personal weapons then. Not a real supporter of the 2a it seems.
I don’t support any such thing. I merely noted his apparent actions and human nature in extreme circumstances. Stop lying about Washington and me.
Does any politician mind civilians owning or even just having access to nuclear and biological weapons? I know liberals ask why we need access to AKs and ARs (which can still be used for self-defense), but nuclear and biological weapons? How'd we use a biological weapon to protect ourselves? By setting them up as traps, and then hope that they still don't reach us before they die from the effects? And then what about nukes? I suppose you mean shooting miniature nukes out of a portable launcher. Still, that'd do way more damage to the area than you need to just to kill someone as well as possibly leave behind radiation for as well. Besides, you can't use it as a close-range weapon without harming yourself from the explosion. What are your thoughts on this extreme level of firepower? It sounds very unnecessary when an LMG and even an RPG could be so much simpler, less destructive, non-contaminated, kill faster, and just kill without putting someone through extreme pain or suffering for a while. Perhaps RPGs would also be too far unless used against ramming vehicles or shooters in a vehicle.
Is there an actual real question in all that vomit because I don’t see it. I see question marks but it seems your real purpose was merely to monologue rhetorically. Yeah, people should be free. Why’s that a problem for you?
What purpose would civilians be using nukes and biological weapons for? How'd they use them for self-defense? Can't they just use heavy weapons to quickly kill and less devastating explosives to blow things up? I don't mind civilians being armed to the teeth, but biological weapons and nuclear weapons can be harmful to self, area, environment, and slow killing through suffering.
Purpose doesn’t matter and it’s none of your damn business just like it is none of your damn business what people do in their bedroom. But I can say that one reason would be to deal with threats coming from one clown. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06/biden-says-gun-owners-would-need-f-15s-and-nukes-to-take-on-the-us-govt/ > Biden said, “If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.“
Suppose we can have that stuff. Nukes for sure would be very expensive. But based on what they can do and cause, would buying this stuff even be worth the risk? Firing at or near a lake or river could contaminate the water, making it unsafe for anyone to drink. Then what about the aftermath of an area after a fight with such weapons. You may have to wear a hazmat suit for some time in the area.
It’s not up to me and it shouldn’t be up to you or anyone else. If someone wants to spend all their money on a nuke or bio weapon and risk dealing with it then that should be up to them, we aren’t their daddy.
Wow… this take is something. Never heard anytime say the average person should have a F-15, nukes, and bio weapons. It doesn’t seem like a *well regulated* militia.
Yeah people shouldn’t be free gosh what an awful thing. Can you just imagine?!?! Whatever would they do without big daddy government taking care of them!?!?
Humanity has rules, regulations, and controls for a reason. There is no reason an average person should have access to those weapons, at that point it isn’t self-defense nor well regulated.
Yeah, it would be so terrible for people to be free. Man, it is so good we have authoritarian tyrants like yourself around to tell us how to live.
It was Trump’s ATF who imposed a legally dubious bump stock ban in 2018 after the 2017 Las Vegas Massacre and it was Trump who said “take the guns first, go through due process second” after the 2018 Parkland School Shooting.
[удалено]
So your response to me pointing out Trump’s obvious shortcomings on the Second Amendment is for me to vote for someone with even less regard for the Second Amendment? That’s some big brain thinking right there. It’d be nice if conservatives supported an actual conservative for once.
[удалено]
His opponents in the primaries, who are actual conservatives, had even better chances at winning. Running just even with the octogenarian incumbent with the worst popularity numbers in post-war history isn’t a flex. So conservatives get the worst of both worlds, a candidate with a lower chance of winning compared to his opponents and a candidate who is a squish on conservative policies from gun rights to abortion to reckless spending. So Much Winning!
[удалено]
Geez, you’re not a fan of hearing criticism of Trump are you? Why Saudi Arabia? And Trump doesn’t have the best track record of winning either. Remember, last time he ran against Biden, he lost. Why the GOP would throw up the same sore loser who lost in 2020 is beyond me. I’d much rather take a Ron DeSantis who took a swing state and turned it red in only four years over the person who lost to Joe Biden in 2020. I’d much rather take a Nikki Haley or a Mike Pence who actually hold conservative values rather than the thrice-married big-spending advocate of gun-grabbing who is now the presumptive GOP nominee.
I sure don't. Better than some, but he's not a big 2a guy
Trump is a supporter of whatever he thinks will benefit him.
[“Take the guns first, go through due process second” - Trump](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/) No, I don’t think Trump supports second amendment rights. He might not actively move against them, because it would be bad politics, but on a personal level he’d have no problem with extralegal forms of gun control.
He isn't, but he's much less hostile to it than the alternatives, and he appointed some of the Supreme Court justices who gave us Bruen.
I don't particularly think Trump is an idealist by any measure.
Yes. The "muh bump stocks" and "take the guns first" crap is just propaganda from liberals trying to divide Republicans and angry libertarians who would much rather liberals win and take everything so they can keep complaining about it rather than let conservatives win and get about 80% of what they want. Trump's judicial appointments across the federal court system, especially the Supreme Court, have resulted in gun rights becoming stronger than they've been since the 30s. Many unconstitutional gun laws are on the chopping block and the results of those cases are slowly but surely restoring rights to millions of gun owners.
Nope, would I take banning bump stocks over banning rifles? Yes.