Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:32 am

JustaShooter wrote:If I understand the point of the above, it is still irrelevant. As you have *no* right to enter my property and can only do so at my pleasure, you must agree to my terms. If you do not, you have no privilege to do so and you violate *my* rights if you persist on entering. The concept that the definition of "inalienable" means you cannot willingly give up your rights is flawed - people do so all the time. However, - and I think this is crucial - that is irrelevant because your RKBA is *not* inalienable. Your right to life is, as is your right to liberty, but not your right to keep and bear arms. If it were otherwise, then our right to free speech would likewise be inalienable and I submit that is not the case and I do not see you arguing otherwise.


I can envision a scenario where this is carried out today: Amusement Parks, Concert venues, places that sell entry tickets. No outside food. Jacket and tie required. You assert that there's a contract for entry that is voluntarily entered into whereby I forego my exercise of my retained RKBA. I hear you and am not unsympathetic to many of these circumstances. I agree that commercial property owners get to set certain terms to ticketed voluntary entry of a venue. In the case of retail commercial establishments, there are no barriers to entry, generally. Other retailers, like Costco or Sam's Club, charge membership fees for entry. Again, not unsympathetic. In short, I'm not claiming a free right of entry.

I'm interested to hear the distinction between my Right to Life / Liberty and RKBA/Free Speech. How is one inalienable and the other not? What is the tier structure for these Rights and which are greater and which are lesser?

JustaShooter wrote:You say I'm banning an inanimate object. I say I'm banning a person who chooses to disregard my wishes - however flawed and uninformed they might be. You say I've no moral basis to object to the transaction - granted. The issue isn't the transaction. But as a pacifist, I have a moral objection to your presence in my property while armed.


I'll grant the moral and/or religious objection, but that does not diminish my property ownership of myself, my Rights to Life/Liberty/RKBA, etc. We can both exist in a place and not comprehend the tension between your active pacifism and my ability to defend my own life. The quick way to flush this out is to ask if the pacifist would call the police to his commercial property, as it would be reasonably inferred that they would bring guns to the scene.

JustaShooter wrote:Ah! But your RKBA does cause me mental harm because it violates my fervently-held pacifist beliefs. On the other hand, I've not restricted your rights at all - you either voluntarily agree to set them aside and enter my property, or you go elsewhere. Again *you have no right to enter my property* - meet my conditions or go elsewhere.
Are you claiming that your mental health, however valid or sincere your pacifistic beliefs, is superior to what you consider some secondary tiered RKBA? Again, not claiming an absolute right to enter your property, assuming you've erected some barriers to entry. I'm asserting that the purpose of government is to defend my RKBA, in part, and your commercial property rights, in part.

JustaShooter wrote:2: I agree with you that the government has no business inserting themselves into the matter, it is in my opinion effectively a back-handed method of infringement of that right. You choose to deny RKBA on your property? Fine - but that should in no way affect your liability. If you actually have the courage of your convictions, then you don't need the support of government to stand upon them.

I agree wholeheartedly about the courage of one's convictions, hence the axiom "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

When you say "infringement of that right" are you asserting RKBA to be a right inherent in my humanity? My liability is not affected, agreed. The point of the FEE article was that by denying someone the ability to defend themselves, the commercial property owner, be it private or government, should have an increased duty and liability in the event that some bodily harm comes to the patron.

JustaShooter wrote:Again, and again, and again: a property owner has (or should have) absolute control over their property. You have no right to enter unless you meet their conditions. If you *voluntarily* set aside your RKBA or right of free speech because transacting business with the property owner is more important to you, then, that is your choice.

Again, I agree that I have no right to traverse whatever barriers to entry you've erected, but commercial property owners don't get to demand a kidney or my infant son in order to enter the venue. Whether or not i was willing to part with my kidney or my infant son, commercial property owners don't get to make that demand. For this purpose, government was erected. There is a line that is too far, impeding on my Rights, regardless of my desire and willingness to enter under your terms.

JustaShooter wrote:Yes! Yes you are! You want to use the force of government to strip me of the fundamental right to control my private property as I see fit.

As with all other Rights, they are properly limited by the Rights of others. (Again, the beauty of negative rights is that they impose nothing on others) You may not demand x number pints of my blood, because I own it. I have granted, and continue to grant many controls over your commercial property. However, there is a line you may not transgress. At that line, civil government is playing its proper role in punishing the entity making the demand, in an effort to uphold RKBA.
JustaShooter wrote:
bignflnut wrote:I'm upholding property owners rights to self-defense.

I suspect you meant something different than what you wrote, otherwise this makes no sense to me.

I'm positing self-ownership and that your demand that I disarm is unreasonable. I uphold property rights by recognizing my life as my property and my ability to defend it as my responsibility, which I may not be denied.

JustaShooter wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Furthermore, the proper role of government is to use force in upholding Rights

Again, I strongly disagree. You say the role of government is to uphold our rights, yet you want to use government to strip a right from property owners under the guise of a right you do not possess - that is, you have no right to enter that property without the consent of and under the conditions imposed by the property owner.
I think of it as using the government to defend my Right to self defense/RKBA , of which I shall not be deprived, which imposes not on the Rights of the commercial property owner.
JustaShooter wrote:Once more: You have no right to enter another's private property. Your right to possess an object does not give you the right to bring it onto another's property - regardless of how well-protected that right is *from government infringement*.
Once more, agreed, I do not have a right to enter private property. Commercial property void of entry barriers, perhaps. In general, I agree with you that I have no right to un-permitted barrier-ed commercial property entry. My right to posses an object flows from my ownership of my life and the right to protect my own bodily safety, which is a proper Right the government was erected to defend.

bignflnut wrote:I look forward to hearing your thoughts on government commercial property rights and how they differ from private commercial property rights, over and above the private commercial property owner's rights superseding personal ownership of one's body and RKBA.

JustaShooter wrote:I don't see how I can express it more clearly than I already have above. Unless we can agree that private property rights reign supreme and that a person has no right to enter another's property without their consent and unless they meet the conditions of entry imposed by the property owner, then I fear there isn't much we can discuss.

I appreciate your efforts to bring clarity and express your position. This is a healthy, edifying exchange.
I think we're on the same page as it relates to entry on private property. You can't come to my house without permission, I can't come to yours. You're not allowing my life to be my private property, which I own, however, and it befuddles me. I couldn't be a larger advocate of private property rights. I'm right there with you. Private property rights reign supreme. That's exactly why I can bring a gun onto any property where I've paid the fee or agreed to the terms of entry which do not diminish my Negative Rights.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:10 am

JustaShooter wrote:Perhaps this is where we part ways. I disagree that any part of the CONUS or BOR is anything *but* a restriction on government. Every word of that document was intended to spell out the role and restrictions of government. Noting more. Nothing less. I propose giving no more rights to commercial property *owners* than I do any property owner. The fiction that commercial property owners have *fewer* rights than any other private property owner was made out of whole cloth by the government in their desire to consolidate more power than the CONUS allows them.


So, any non-governmental entity can deny me various rights, because rights only bind government? So, I can coerce you to testify against yourself, as long as we're not in a government proceeding? My private security firm can force you to house my employees, because none of us are pounding a government paycheck?

It's an interesting flowchart that would illustrate how governments were erected simply to limit government power. Commercial or individuals can treat each other however they would like, some guy on the street can harm my wife, because, hey, they're not government? Life/Liberty etc only restricts government?

I posit that these documents drew the bright red lines that may not be suppressed by anyone, government or otherwise. That's how private citizens sue each other or commercial entities. That's how people charge each other with crimes.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby JustaShooter » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:47 am

We are at an impasse so I see no reason to continue. I believe my private property rights are absolute and allow me to impose whatever conditions I desire for entry and that there is no conflict of rights if I require you to set one of your rights (1A, 2A) aside as a condition of entry because you have no right to enter my property in the first place. You believe it is your right to enter my property without meeting my conditions. I cannot see how this can be resolved, the disagreement is too fundamental.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby JustaShooter » Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:54 am

bignflnut wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:Perhaps this is where we part ways. I disagree that any part of the CONUS or BOR is anything *but* a restriction on government. Every word of that document was intended to spell out the role and restrictions of government. Noting more. Nothing less. I propose giving no more rights to commercial property *owners* than I do any property owner. The fiction that commercial property owners have *fewer* rights than any other private property owner was made out of whole cloth by the government in their desire to consolidate more power than the CONUS allows them.


So, any non-governmental entity can deny me various rights, because rights only bind government? So, I can coerce you to testify against yourself, as long as we're not in a government proceeding? My private security firm can force you to house my employees, because none of us are pounding a government paycheck?

It's an interesting flowchart that would illustrate how governments were erected simply to limit government power. Commercial or individuals can treat each other however they would like, some guy on the street can harm my wife, because, hey, they're not government? Life/Liberty etc only restricts government?

I posit that these documents drew the bright red lines that may not be suppressed by anyone, government or otherwise. That's how private citizens sue each other or commercial entities. That's how people charge each other with crimes.

No, you twist my words to say something I am not. Please don't do that. I am simply saying that the CONUS does not place limitations on individuals, only government (and originally, only the Federal Government though it has since been ruled in the courts to extend to the various state governments as well). The body of law, both common and written, express the limits of individual behavior (and perhaps more accurately, define punishments for behaviors we wish to curtail). I have no *constitutional* basis to prohibit you from preaching your religious dogma from my front porch, but the legal basis of trespass.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:38 am

JustaShooter wrote:We are at an impasse so I see no reason to continue. I believe my private property rights are absolute and allow me to impose whatever conditions I desire for entry and that there is no conflict of rights if I require you to set one of your rights (1A, 2A) aside as a condition of entry because you have no right to enter my property in the first place. You believe it is your right to enter my property without meeting my conditions. I cannot see how this can be resolved, the disagreement is too fundamental.
**I added the bold to draw attention to it**

Before you disengage, I write not to be a blowhard or have the last word on the matter, but to hopefully clarify my position. In a discussion it is often helpful for the participants to repeat back what the other is saying so that they mutually understand where each other stands.

Your position is that you have an "absolute" right to impose whatever conditions you desire for entry and that you can require me to set aside my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and presumably others in the BOR, at least, in so doing. I hope that I am representing your position properly.

My position is being misrepresented as a right to enter your property without meeting your conditions (assuming you've erected barriers to entry, the bold-ed section of your response). That's too broad a statement.

For example, Disney insists on slapping a bracelet on my kids that tracks them all over the park, after charging a fee, etc. Should they be able to inject a chip in my kid's hand? Where is that line? Is there a line?

A commercial property owner can insist that I wear long sleeves and long pants, steel toed boots, double knot my left shoe, charge a fee rivaling the median income, and so much more before permitting my entry to a venue (no bags/coolers, etc). I affirm the commercial property owner's rights in this way. I have no right to enter his commercial property aside from his permission -- I affirm trespassing laws, in general. That said, there is a limit to what can be demanded to gain the commercial property owner's permission. It isn't a dress code, or an entry fee, I have to keep my hands and feet inside the car at all times (various behavior requirements, including speech aka obscenities, because it hurts sales/business, while inside). But again, there is a limit.

I cannot be asked to have my fingerprint/iris scan taken. I cannot be asked to have my blood taken. I cannot be asked to have my body x-rayed, microwaved, injected with chemotherapy drugs or vaccines, even clean water. The limit to what the commercial property owner can demand/request is the Rights that I retain. There are many, but they generally spring from my self-ownership.

Before you disengage, I simply ask that my position is represented properly, if not directly addressed. Do you acknowledge my general acceptance of barriers to entry that must be satisfied before gaining access to the commercial property? Do you believe that there is any limit to what the commercial property owner can demand (such as the rather absurd examples I've given: kidney, infant son, blood, injected devices/chemical compounds, irradiation, etc)? Certainly people can differ as to where that line is drawn, but do you deny that there should be a line?

Again, I have no quarrel with you, am not attacking your character, belief systems, religion, patriotism, etc. I respect and thank you for your willingness to engage this issue, being transparent and sincere about where you stand.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:41 am

JustaShooter wrote:No, you twist my words to say something I am not. Please don't do that. I am simply saying that the CONUS does not place limitations on individuals, only government (and originally, only the Federal Government though it has since been ruled in the courts to extend to the various state governments as well).


My apologies. I ask your forgiveness. I failed to accurately represent what you were saying. I was not attempting to misinterpret or twist your position. That's not helpful to the discussion and I appreciate you quickly correcting me.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby WY_Not » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:17 am

Disney and others absolutely have the right to require such things if they want. Doesn't mean that anyone has to provide them. One would also hope that they quickly go bankrupt for trying to impose such nonsense. But, it is their right to go bankrupt if they wish. Unless you are a large bank or GM then you must be bailed out. :roll:

They are free to request anything their precious little hearts desire. You can be asked for fingerprints, iris scans, blood samples, etc. You are free to refuse to provide them and go on your merry way.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.

Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby JustaShooter » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:42 am

WY_Not wrote:Disney and others absolutely have the right to require such things if they want. Doesn't mean that anyone has to provide them. One would also hope that they quickly go bankrupt for trying to impose such nonsense. But, it is their right to go bankrupt if they wish. Unless you are a large bank or GM then you must be bailed out. :roll:

They are free to request anything their precious little hearts desire. You can be asked for fingerprints, iris scans, blood samples, etc. You are free to refuse to provide them and go on your merry way.

Exactly.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby JustaShooter » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:16 pm

bignflnut wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:We are at an impasse so I see no reason to continue. I believe my private property rights are absolute and allow me to impose whatever conditions I desire for entry and that there is no conflict of rights if I require you to set one of your rights (1A, 2A) aside as a condition of entry because you have no right to enter my property in the first place. You believe it is your right to enter my property without meeting my conditions. I cannot see how this can be resolved, the disagreement is too fundamental.
**I added the bold to draw attention to it**

Before you disengage, I write not to be a blowhard or have the last word on the matter, but to hopefully clarify my position. In a discussion it is often helpful for the participants to repeat back what the other is saying so that they mutually understand where each other stands.

Your position is that you have an "absolute" right to impose whatever conditions you desire for entry and that you can require me to set aside my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and presumably others in the BOR, at least, in so doing. I hope that I am representing your position properly.

My position is being misrepresented as a right to enter your property without meeting your conditions (assuming you've erected barriers to entry, the bold-ed section of your response). That's too broad a statement.

It was not my intent to misrepresent your position. It may be that the statement as written was too broad, but you must admit that at least you believe it is your right to enter my property without meeting *all* of my conditions, particularly those you disagree with because you feel like they are a violation of your rights.

bignflnut wrote:For example, Disney insists on slapping a bracelet on my kids that tracks them all over the park, after charging a fee, etc. Should they be able to inject a chip in my kid's hand? Where is that line? Is there a line?

A commercial property owner can insist that I wear long sleeves and long pants, steel toed boots, double knot my left shoe, charge a fee rivaling the median income, and so much more before permitting my entry to a venue (no bags/coolers, etc). I affirm the commercial property owner's rights in this way. I have no right to enter his commercial property aside from his permission -- I affirm trespassing laws, in general. That said, there is a limit to what can be demanded to gain the commercial property owner's permission. It isn't a dress code, or an entry fee, I have to keep my hands and feet inside the car at all times (various behavior requirements, including speech aka obscenities, because it hurts sales/business, while inside). But again, there is a limit.

I cannot be asked to have my fingerprint/iris scan taken. I cannot be asked to have my blood taken. I cannot be asked to have my body x-rayed, microwaved, injected with chemotherapy drugs or vaccines, even clean water. The limit to what the commercial property owner can demand/request is the Rights that I retain. There are many, but they generally spring from my self-ownership.

Yes, you can be asked for most if not all of those, and more - and if you refuse, then you can be barred entry (and I believe, properly). Of course, if the commercial property owner imposes sufficient restrictions on entry that not enough are willing to comply that the business cannot survive, then they have to choose between changing the restrictions and failing as a business.

bignflnut wrote:Before you disengage, I simply ask that my position is represented properly, if not directly addressed. Do you acknowledge my general acceptance of barriers to entry that must be satisfied before gaining access to the commercial property? Do you believe that there is any limit to what the commercial property owner can demand (such as the rather absurd examples I've given: kidney, infant son, blood, injected devices/chemical compounds, irradiation, etc)? Certainly people can differ as to where that line is drawn, but do you deny that there should be a line?

I believe I accurately represented your position above - if not, let me know.

As to my position, you haven't quite captured it. Certainly there is a line - I cannot demand your life (to take it to an absurd extreme) or or demand to cause you severe physical harm. But inject a tracking device under the skin of your hand? Done under the proper medical conditions and supervision, certainly. Demand a blood sample for testing under those same conditions? Sure. Require you to submit to a breathalyzer? Yes. Require you to submit to a search of your person and effects? Without a doubt. Restrict outward expression of religious affiliation? Indeed. Prevent your entry unless you remove all weapons and objects that can be used as weapons. Again, yes.

bignflnut wrote:Again, I have no quarrel with you, am not attacking your character, belief systems, religion, patriotism, etc. I respect and thank you for your willingness to engage this issue, being transparent and sincere about where you stand.

I've not felt you were doing so, if I gave the impression I thought you were then I apologize for it was not my intent.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 4546
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:37 am

JustaShooter wrote:Yes, you can be asked for most if not all of those, and more - and if you refuse, then you can be barred entry (and I believe, properly). Of course, if the commercial property owner imposes sufficient restrictions on entry that not enough are willing to comply that the business cannot survive, then they have to choose between changing the restrictions and failing as a business.


I'm not sure whether to consider this a fervently free market position or borderline anarchist position.

JustaShooter wrote:Certainly there is a line - I cannot demand your life (to take it to an absurd extreme) or or demand to cause you severe physical harm.


I'm encouraged to hear that there is some line, moving us away from the potentially anarchist position.

I hope everybody reads all the terms of service, insurance contracts, hospital admissions forms, etc that people engage in, because with the position being taken, if people/consumers voluntarily enter into these contracts, there is precious little stopping companies from legally requiring damaging concessions. This seems to be the current state of play.

If the frog will boil voluntarily, nobody should stop the chef from turning up the heat, so long as he doesn't kill it. As society continues dumbing down future generations, society will suffer, but business won't.

In no way do I want to come across as anti-business. I am engaged in multiple business ventures. I simply find that they are bounded, as are the rest of us, by the Rights of others.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:16 pm

There will always be evil people who will try and use schools as the prime location for their murder sprees. The only way to prevent that is to abolish schools, and since that’s not remotely a viable idea, we have to look elsewhere.

In Illinois, some private schools have taken to placing alarms in schools that will notify the police if pulled.


Next, they're going to buy a bat signal...for all the good it will do them in the morning / daytime ...as our "leaders" continue to fail our Liberty to protect our young in government buildings.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:36 pm

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh now on the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump continues making good on his pledge to use Supreme Court nominations to save the Second Amendment from “people like Hillary Clinton.”
Image

Let's hope that it comes to pass that Kav does bring back militias, uphold RKBA and keep ALL our Liberties safe from "people like Hillary Clinton".

Image
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby bignflnut » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:45 am

Maybe because the stock market is puking right now, maybe because midterms are upcoming, who knows why...

As Trump nears the two-year mark of his historic election and conducts political rallies around the country during which he talks up his wins in hopes it will energize Republican voters, the administration has counted up 289 accomplishments in 18 categories, capped by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

They include 173 major wins like adding more than 4 million jobs and another 116 smaller victories, some with outsized importance such as the 83 percent one-year increase in arrests of MS-13 gang members.

SNIP

Along the way, there have been some disappointments such as failing to replace Obamacare, fund a big infrastructure plan and build the border wall.

But the White House believes that despite a lack of media coverage of his accomplishments, supporters know about them and will head to the voting polls to help the GOP maintain control of the House and keep the president on what CNN dubbed a “winning streak.”

SNIP

He wrote, “The fact is, in his first two years, Trump has compiled a remarkable record of presidential promise-keeping.”


For all of the pro-Tump voters who don't want to focus on 2A issues (bump stock bans, ERPOs/Take the guns then go to court, "gun-free" zones, etc ...).

289 accomplishments more important than a "Day One" promise.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6366
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Trump, Gun Free Zones and Day One

Postby schmieg » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:50 pm

There is usually a market pull back every nine months or so and this is the ninth month.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5154
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Previous

Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Randymp and 3 guests