[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: “Big Second Amendment Guy” Donald Trump Wants Police to Take Away More Guns Donald Trump’s professed love of guns is almost as abiding as his love of walls and portraits of himself. He has claimed that no one loves the Second Amendment more, and that he could shoot someone in the street “and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” He wants to federalize concealed-carry laws, and once suggested that the Pulse nightclub shooting would have gone differently had the patrons carried weapons, a statement that even the N.R.A. said “defies common sense.” He has called himself a “big Second Amendment guy” and even proposed that if gun control-loving Hillary Clinton became president, “Second Amendment people” could “do something” about it—a statement widely viewed as a threat. The National Rifle Association, not surprisingly, took Trump’s side. The more guns, the better, in other words. Or at least that’s what Trump advocates for his gun-enthused supporters. When it comes to America’s inner cities, which Trump has characterized as “rife with crime,” the G.O.P. nominee proposes something quiet different: the expansion of the controversial “stop and frisk” policy, wherein police are encouraged to conduct widespread stops—usually of African-Americans—and confiscate weapons. “You know, [the police are] proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away,” he explained Thursday on Fox and Friends, attempting to walk back his call to implement stop-and-frisk nationwide. Criticized from both the left and the right for advocating the policy, which at least one judge has ruled unconstitutional and which several studies show disproportionately discriminates against minorities, the native New Yorker clarified that he was only suggesting that stop-and-frisk be used in Chicago. “I think Chicago needs stop-and-frisk,” he insisted, pointing to several statistics showing skyrocketing murders in the Windy City. “Now people can criticize me for that or people can say whatever they want, but they asked me about Chicago and I think stop-and-frisk with good strong—you know—good, strong law and order. But you have to do something. It can’t continue the way it’s going.” Trump seemed unaware of the fact that Chicago already has stop-and-frisk policies in place, and that according to the A.C.L.U., it has been woefully implemented thus far. According to the civil liberties group, Chicagoans have been stopped “four times as often as New Yorkers at the height of New York City’s stop and frisk practice,” and black residents are “disproportionately” targeted, with little effect on crime rates. At least some conservatives were appalled by Trump’s comments, too, although the N.R.A. has yet to weigh in on the Republican nominee advocating a confiscatory gun policy. Perhaps that is because the people Trump is talking about stopping and frisking are not the N.R.A.’s core constituency. Or perhaps it is because they would prefer not to highlight their preferred candidate’s long history of contradictory statements about gun control. Trump after all, previously supported the 1994 assault-weapons ban, before he decided to Make America Great Again. It could be that Trump simply doesn’t understand the nuance of the gun policy debate that is of such great interest to his base, and would rather keep people guessing than commit to any one particular position. As he said during an early primary debate, when asked about his self-professed habit of arming himself with a concealed weapon: “I like to be unpredictable, so people don’t know what I’m carrying.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: Willie Green (#0)
The N.R.A. position “defies common sense.” Common sense tells us that if everyone could carry arms (as in Israel) terrorists and gangbangers would soon cease. "An armed society is a polite (and safe) society"... Which we experienced for our first several hundred years in America. -- The trouble started with the insane idea that we could ban the carrying of weapons, -- back in the late 1800's, with the rise of progressive liberalism.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|