Donald Trump Declares: ‘Second Amendment 100%’

[mountaineer]

Is Donald Trump Really Pro-gun?
By: Tom McHale
Posted: 11/24/15
Outdoor Hub

We’re going to do a series here at OutdoorHub to dig a little deeper on each Republican candidate to find out their real positions on the Second Amendment. Given politicians’ expertise in the art of doublespeak, this undertaking might be tougher than nailing jelly to a wall, but we’re going to give it our best.

Why only Republican candidates? The Democrat side is pretty clear on the issue. Surprisingly, at least during this presidential election cycle, they’re speaking their intentions openly. At least they get brownie points for being clear on where they really stand.

We’re going to do our best to filter through the campaign promises. After evaluation of what they say and what they’ve actually done in the past, we’ll offer our best guess as to what they really believe. In the end, you’ll have to make your own judgment call. Fair enough?

With that said, let’s start with that billionaire real estate and Miss USA mogul Donald Trump.

What he says

Publicly, Candidate Trump talks the talk of a Second Amendment champion. He’s taken the bold move of publishing some pretty positive-sounding platform positions on his campaign website. Here are a few nuggets from his Second Amendment Positions page.

    The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

So far, so good. But, as we know, just about every politician ever born has said they support the Second Amendment. It’s their interpretation that varies.

    The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

Okay, he’s not referring to the Second Amendment regarding “our hunting heritage,” so that sounds promising.

    Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

If we choose to take Trump at his word, he seems to get the deterrent concept of concealed carry and that victims are, by definition, always the first responder. He also holds a New York concealed carry permit, for what that’s worth.

Here are a few other select quotes from his official position statement.

    “Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried.”

    “Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons’, ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines’ to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans.”

    “The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”

    “Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners.”

    “Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.”

    “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. 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.”

    “Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous.”

All in all, in recent years, he’s been pretty bold about his support for gun rights. However, if you look back further into his past, you’ll find somewhat less clarity and enthusiasm.

    I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology, we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

That line and a couple of others that seem to support “reasonable restrictions” on gun rights are from his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. He’s been asked about these comments on a couple of occasions recently and has yet to explain clearly the difference in his words then versus now.

How he’s voted

As this is the first article in this series, we should make a quick observation about the significance of political votes. With almost every bill vomited from the Senate and House chambers, it’s difficult to assign too much meaning to someone’s core values based on their vote. Politicians are notorious for adding all sorts of unrelated garbage onto bills, so you never really know whether a proponent or opponent supports an issue or not.

When evaluating someone’s vote on a particular bill, you really have to peel back the layers before assigning credit or blame. The same concept applies to donations. There are many, many reasons people write checks, so it’s important to peel back the layers before making a judgement.

Now back to the Apprentice Maker. Our evaluation gets a little tricky here because he doesn’t have a voting record as he’s not a career politician. As a proxy, I decided to find out where he’s put his money in the past. Has he supported one side or the other in the Second Amendment debate?

One way to get a handle on Trump’s political leanings is to look at his overall contributions over the years to Democrats and Republicans. It’s not a perfect proxy for support or rejection of gun rights, but it’s an indicator, at least according to official party platforms and views of the leading candidates. While most people seem to believe that Trump has given more to Democrats, figures tallied by Politifact indicate otherwise. According to their math, over the past 26 years he’s donated $584,850 to Democrats and $961,140 to Republican candidates. However, it should be noted that his Republican-leaning donations began in 2012. Before that year, most of his cash went to Democrat candidates. Does that shift represent a change in values or is it just groundwork for a Republican nomination run?

Trump has donated about $105,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). It’s hard to tell how significant that is, but it’s the same group that recently awarded former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the Clinton Global Citizen Award for being, in presenter Vice President Joe Biden’s words, “most fierce and most effective advocate that we have on the matter of gun sanity.” In fairness, whether you agree with the CGI or not, they’re involved in a lot more than simply gun control.

Trump also donated $50,000 to Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago mayoral campaign. I can count the number of people more anti-gun than Rahm Emanuel on one hand. However, Rahm was going to be running the city where Trump has significant property holdings. Smart business? Perhaps.
Our best guess

You never really know what someone will do after the votes are counted. How would Trump really act once elected? More importantly, will he act aggressively on the issue or just pay verbal lip service? It’s easy to stand at the podium and talk about what we should do. Would he have the conviction to push big initiative through like shutting down the ATF, implementing national concealed carry protections, or removing restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles?

His recent talk seems clear and convincing. On the plus side, he’s been more specific about exactly how he support Second Amendment issues than most any other candidate. He’s also detailed his position in writing in his platform. Many others will verbally state some nebulous support of gun rights in a speech, but are often reluctant to detail their views, especially in writing. On the flip side, his past positions are a valid reason for concern as he has yet to clarify a believable explanation for his apparent change of position.

As far as the donations go, it’s hard to draw conclusions one way or the other. As a businessman trying to get things done all over the country, it’s far more likely that his donations are a tool to gain support for his various development projects.

If you made me choose a position, I’d put Candidate Trump in the “gun rights supporter” column, but clearly Mr. USA has some additional explaining to do.

[mountaineer]

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton Wins Top Gun Control Award

Last week the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence awarded Hillary Clinton the “Mario Cuomo Visionary Award” for her efforts in pushing for gun control.

The award, which was given out at the organization’s annual Bear Awards gala in New York City, was named after former New York Governor and anti-gun activist Mario Cuomo, the father of current New York Mayor Andrew Cuomo.

Clinton is the first person to receive the new award.

“Throughout her career as a public servant, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly put the safety of the American people above the influence and interests of the corporate gun lobby,” Brady president Dan Gross told CBS News. “She serves as an example for all policymakers who truly want to serve the constituencies they are elected to represent.”  ...

[ABX]

Donald Trump doesn’t read TTAG. If the aspiring Commander-in-Chief read our post Here’s Why People on the “No Fly List” Should Be Able to Buy Guns, for example, he could’ve defended firearms freedom against the latest “common sense” assault on our gun rights. Then again, who am I kidding? Donald Trump is a populist. While he talks a good game on gun rights – now – his command of the facts on this or any other issue is tenuous. Actually, it’s worse than that. Check out this answer to George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week.  . . .

    If we have an enemy of state, I don’t want to give him anything. I want to have him in jail, that’s what I want. I want to have him in jail. But if those people in Paris had guns in that room, it would have been a shootout and very few people would have been hurt by comparison to the number that were hurt . . .

    If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state. I would keep them away, absolutely.

Once again, we commend Mr. Trump for defending our natural, civil and Constitutional right to defend ourselves by force of arms. [Full text of the interchange here.] And I couldn’t agree more with the Donald: if there’s sufficient evidence that an American or foreign national is a terrorist, they should be arrested, prosecuted and jailed. Access-to-guns problem solved.

But big ol’ brickbats for Trump for thinking it’s OK for unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats to deem someone an “enemy of state” and then deny them their gun rights. Could that “No Guns for Enemies of the State” list include you, an average law-abiding gun owner who might just belong to the NRA? In a Clinton administration, sure! Why not? Liberals have already classified the NRA as a terrorist organization.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/11/robert-farago/donald-trump-nist-watch-list/

Just remember who the DC bureaucrats consider the primary terrorist threat in the US.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/homeland-security-declares-christians-are-terrorists/blog-59077/ 

[sinkspur]

Trump says stuff without thinking.  Or, maybe he really believes that guns should be kept away from anybody the government considers a threat.

Doesn't matter, though.  He's tough and rich and nasty and that's what a third of GOP voters seem to want. 

[EdinVA]

Just remember who the DC bureaucrats consider the primary terrorist threat in the US.

Agree, but the fact that we have anti-constitutional jerks in the government does not take away from Trumps statement.
Hopefully, the next president can sanitize the feds a bit and make some of these things work.

[HAPPY2BME]

On November 28 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump told supporters in Sarasota, Florida, that he is “Second Amendment 100%.”

According to CNN, Trump referenced the Paris terror attacks and suggested an armed citizenry would have made a difference. He said, “If they would have had the guns, they wouldn’t have had the carnage they had.”

He added, “I just want to say upfront, right now, Second Amendment 100%.”

During a November 22 appearance on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Trump made a similar observation, saying:

You know George, I am a really big proponent of the Second Amendment. I’ll give you an example–if in Paris some of those people had guns, you wouldn’t have had the horror show that you had where [none of the innocents] had guns.

He said that an armed citizenry could have turned the tables and made things difficult for the bad guys instead of difficult for the innocents.

This has been Trump’s mantra since long before the November 13 Paris attacks. Following the January 7 Charlie Hebdo attack Trump warned, “If the people so violently shot down in Paris had guns, at least they would have had a fighting chance… Remember, when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns!”



source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/donald-trump-declares-second-amendment-100/

[Longiron]

Let's take away guns from the good guys so the bad guys can be stronger. Barry will jump on this again to take the attention off the things he will be doing in 2016. This and the election will give him more cover to screw America more until he leaves. 

[kevindavis007]

Right, somehow I don't believe his conversion to support the 2nd amendment right away.. Never mind he did call for Gun bans..

[DCPatriot]

Let's take away guns from the good guys so the bad guys can be stronger. Barry will jump on this again to take the attention off the things he will be doing in 2016. This and the election will give him more cover to screw America more until he leaves. 

This is a perfect example of how Trump continues to slay the media-controlled Democrat Party and their minions pushing the Left agenda.

It's the ONLY way the beast can be killed.  Appeal to an American's basic instinct.

Obama comes out and says, 'Enough is enough....we need to do something about guns', and Trump says, "Second Amendment- 100%"


....ain't nobody going to take down Donald Trump.  Not in a figurative sense anyways.   

[NavyCanDo]

Except the Second Amendment in it's strongest form, does not stop a business like a theater holding a heavy metal rock concert, or an office like Planned Parenthood from having a no-guns policy. Here in America, as stupid as it might be, businesses have the right to install that policy, with a number of constitutional laws backing them up. Even a President Trump cannot demand that no gun zones be done away with. Best we can do is educate the public that "Gun free zones" are easy pickins'. This is true of gun free nations as well. And hope public opinion swings in the right direction.

[sinkspur]

This is a perfect example of how Trump continues to slay the media-controlled Democrat Party and their minions pushing the Left agenda.

It's the ONLY way the beast can be killed.  Appeal to an American's basest instincts.

Obama comes out and says, 'Enough is enough....we need to do something about guns', and Trump says, "Second Amendment- 100%"


....ain't nobody going to take down Donald Trump.  Not in a figurative sense anyways.   

Fixed it.

[DCPatriot]

Fixed it.

    

[Longiron]

This is a perfect example of how Trump continues to slay the media-controlled Democrat Party and their minions pushing the Left agenda.

It's the ONLY way the beast can be killed.  Appeal to an American's basic instinct.

Obama comes out and says, 'Enough is enough....we need to do something about guns', and Trump says, "Second Amendment- 100%"


....ain't nobody going to take down Donald Trump.  Not in a figurative sense anyways.   

Now DC beware John Kasich and his 2.5 million Super PAC is going after Trump and he is scared sh******.
That will do it?

[ABX]

Right, somehow I don't believe his conversion to support the 2nd amendment right away.. Never mind he did call for Gun bans..

[DCPatriot]

Let's assume for a moment that Donald Trump is elected POTUS....come on, come on....focus.....

With a GOP majority House AND Senate, what does anybody in this forum who is anti-Trump think they would do should Donald Trump use EO's to go after guns or ban assault weapons?

Yeah.....exactly.  So why do you continue to push your bullsh*t fears on the rest of us?   

And while I may lack the academic credentials that some hold in here, I have something more valuable.  And obviously rare.

C.O.M.M.O.N.   S.E.N.S.E. 

[HAPPY2BME]

....ain't nobody going to take down Donald Trump.  Not in a figurative sense anyways.   

=====================================

Many thought the same thing about Ross Perot.

[ABX]

Let's assume for a moment that Donald Trump is elected POTUS....come on, come on....focus.....

With a GOP majority House AND Senate, what does anybody in this forum who is anti-Trump think they would do should Donald Trump use EO's to go after guns or ban assault weapons?

Yeah.....exactly.  So why do you continue to push your bullsh*t fears on the rest of us?   

And while I may lack the academic credentials that some hold in here, I have something more valuable.  And obviously rare.

C.O.M.M.O.N.   S.E.N.S.E.

Using your analogy and history along with common sense, let's think a bit more about this.

You would have a President with a history of changing his positions on issues depending on which way the winds of his personal popularity blow. You have a House and a Senate with no backbone who, with the exception of a minority, will give into even the most liberal President like they did with Obama, on many key issues. So if the winds of sentiment change due to some unforseen event (such as another school shooting), how can that President be trusted to continue to stick with this week's position on the issue versus jump to whatever will make him popular with the people at the time? When he has no true foundation,  how can he be trusted to act like you claim?

What's to say he doesn't just jump back on the anti-2nd Amendment bandwagon if that is popular.

This can be said for any position he is taking now.  You wouldn't trust Hillary if she suddenly started saying the same things because you know her history, why not apply it here?

[EC]

Is he going to release his groupings? 

[DCPatriot]

Using your analogy and history along with common sense, let's think a bit more about this.

snip...

What's to say he doesn't just jump back on the anti-2nd Amendment bandwagon if that is popular.

This can be said for any position he is taking now.  You wouldn't trust Hillary if she suddenly started saying the same things because you know her history, why not apply it here?

 CHECKMATE!!

We ALREADY KNOW that the alternative.....Hillary Clinton is a groupie of Saul Alinsky and has already said she will come after our guns.

That's NOT a supposition.  That's already established, among other facts....that she will take from producers for the better good.

One hand.....a guy that has changed his mind.  The other hand....a woman who won't.

[ABX]

CHECKMATE!!

We ALREADY KNOW that the alternative.....Hillary Clinton is a groupie of Saul Alinsky and has already said she will come after our guns.

That's NOT a supposition.  That's already established, among other facts....that she will take from producers for the better good.

One hand.....a guy that has changed his mind.  The other hand....a woman who won't.

Except that isn't the alternate, you are calling checkmate before a couple of pawns have even moved. It is almost a year until the election and a lot of things can happen between now and then and there are a lot of candidates in this race. Automatically assuming it is Trump versus Hillary at this point is giving up the fight for something better or not preparing for something different. You are assuming the worst case scenario and already calling for a devil's bargain long before a single vote has been cast.

This time in 07, it was assumed that it would be Hillary versus Rudy.

[libertybele]

Except that isn't the alternate, you are calling checkmate before a couple of pawns have even moved. It is almost a year until the election and a lot of things can happen between now and then and there are a lot of candidates in this race. Automatically assuming it is Trump versus Hillary at this point is giving up the fight for something better or not preparing for something different. You are assuming the worst case scenario and already calling for a devil's bargain long before a single vote has been cast.

This time in 07, it was assumed that it would be Hillary versus Rudy.

Your point is well made.  Everyone is assuming it will be the "Donald" a year out -- right now he and Cruz are tied in Iowa.  What about the rest of the players??  Rubio and Carson shouldn't be dismissed, nor should Bush really -- he's running attack campaign ads with all the money he has and will continue to do so.

As for Trump on the 2nd amendment -- he hasn't teetered on the subject all that much.  Here is a recap of where he stands on the issue for the past 10-15 years.  Unfortunately, he's an outsider and we really don't have a voting record that we can check against what he says:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

[EC]

As for Trump on the 2nd amendment -- he hasn't teetered on the subject all that much.  Here is a recap of where he stands on the issue for the past 10-15 years.  Unfortunately, he's an outsider and we really don't have a voting record that we can check against what he says:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

That's why I teased about releasing his groupings - Trump HAS been pretty consistent on gun ownership.

[ABX]

Trump HAS been pretty consistent on gun ownership.

Except when he isn't..

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record. - Donald Trump, The America We Deserve http://downtrend.com/71superb/donald-trump-is-not-just-a-clown-hes-a-liberal-anti-gun-clown

[libertybele]

Not trying to defend or support Trump -- merely putting forth more info.  I don't see that he's waivered on the issue all that much.  One of the quotes is going back 15 years ago.  Again, we don't have a voting record to check against -- simply his words. 


Donald Trump on Gun Control
2000 Reform Primary Challenger for President
Follow @ontheissuesorg


A very strong person on the Second Amendment
What does Donald Trump believe? Gun Control: Limit restrictions on guns. Ban some assault weapons & extend the waiting period for purchase.

During a 2013 interview, the real estate mogul defined himself as, "a very strong person on the 2nd Amendment." He believes guns are necessary for self-defense and has written that he generally opposes gun control. In his 2000 book, "The America We Deserve" Trump wrote that he supports a ban on assault weapons and a slightly longer waiting period to buy a gun.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015

I am against gun control
At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump took issue with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the libertarian-thinking lawmaker who set some Internet fundraising records with his 2008 presidential bid. "Ron Paul cannot get elected, I'm sorry," Trump said, calling him "a good guy" who has "zero chance" of getting elected. The remark about Paul prompted some boos and screams from some in the audience, some of them Paul supporters out in force to help their candidate win CPAC's presidential straw poll for the second year in a row.

In his CPAC speech, Trump sounded many themes popular with Republican conservatives. "I am pro-life," he said. "I am against gun control."

And in one of his biggest applause lines, Trump vowed to end the nation's health care law: "I will fight to end Obamacare and replace it with something that makes sense for people in business and not bankrupt the country." Trump also pledged not to raise taxes if elected.
Source: USA Today report on 2011 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Feb 10, 2011

Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns
It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

[libertybele]

Trump is a life member of the NRA....

Here are Trump’s exact words:

    You mention that the media describes the AR-15 as an “assault rifle,” which is one example of the many distortions they use to sell their agenda. However, the AR-15 does not fall under this category. Gun-banners are unfortunately preoccupied with the AR-15, magazine capacity, grips, and other aesthetics, precisely because of its popularity.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/07/donald-trump-lifetime-member-of-nra-concealed-permit-holder/