Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues.

That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, after Trump released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

Trump’s bold and fearless defense of the Second Amendment earned him the coveted endorsement of the National Rifle Association. His warning that Hillary Clinton wants to “abolish the Second Amendment” sounded the alarm to millions of Constitution-loving patriots who want their rights protected.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread Donald Trump’s official policy position on the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

Do you agree with Donald Trump’s position? Scroll down to comment below!


  • I am glad that he took this stand. I hope that enough people will agree. Hilary will be the worst thing that can happen to the second amendment.

  • Terry Sobkowich

    I think he hit on all the points on what is actually useful in preventing violent crime, and eases off traditional gun control measures that are fluff for the masses yet do not contribute to the overall safety of the population. ALL good

  • Dave Golden

    He is a little too moderate but I will still vote for him.

  • SirVesa

    Nice propaganda, but the Chief Executive doesn’t write laws. He may support these things, but his only real power would be to lobby/bully Congress to pass a bill that he can sign into law. Or, at best, he could introduce his legislation and Congress would then bastardize it so as to be utterly unrecognizable by the time it makes it back to his desk.

    • Ken

      The Veto power comes in handy. And it has been executive controls over imports that have limited surplus arms imports for decades.

      • Albert J. Longoria

        Buy american made only!

        • Ken

          Like the millions of American Made, Taxpayer Payed M-1’s and M-1 Carbines and US Colt .45’s that languish in warehouses all over the world because an executive order prohibits importing them? We already paid for them once and we still cannot import them.

    • rdkdave

      You might want to tell Obama this. All of his so called executive orders are exactly what you’re talking about. It’s OK for obummer to do this, but not for the next president?

      • SirVesa

        It’s not OK for ANY President to do.

        • Jerry Jones

          It takes a competent Congress and Courts to reign him in. Congress won’t even stop his budgets and the courts are increasingly stacked with liberals that don’t uphold the law, they manipulate it to fit their ideology.

    • jaybird11300

      Obama didn’t believe in any limitations to his exalted dictatorship! Why should anyond after him; you just declare Executive Orders to be Law of the Land.

  • Philip Brink


  • tigers are awesome

    Coming from the person who actively supported an AWB and watch lists. No thanks….

  • Tambra DiAnn Smith

    I agree with every one of Trump’s points, but I don’t think he goes far enough. Here’s my situation as an example and I know I am not alone. I work on a military base, but I am not active duty military. I’m a contractor supporting my military customer, but I could also be a civil servant, and my example still holds. All of us who work on a military base have had background checks. The vast majority of us have some level of security clearance just to be able to log onto the computer network. So, here I am, a widow. I want to carry concealed for my own protection. One of the times when I most need that safety net is when I’m driving, but, because I work on a military base, I can’t carry at all, because I can’t bring a gun on base, even if it’s locked in the trunk. I’m not allowed to bring a gun through the gate. At least if I worked at a courthouse, for example, I could carry my gun as far as wherever I parked my car, then I would have to leave it behind. I still don’t like that, but it’s better than my current situation. I understand the concerns that go into prohibiting guns in certain places, but wouldn’t it make more sense to crack down on criminals who use guns, and to provide more help and safeguards to mentally unstable people? I should, as a law abiding, tax paying citizen of these United States, be able to carry, openly or concealed, anywhere I go for my own protection.

    • CMac

      I agree my CCW should allow me entrance anywhere except a Courthouse, the Capitol, and others on the list. After going through a Top Secret security background check that takes several months you would think you’ dbe good to go. It’s not right to say you can’t have a lockbox for your weapon to access when you leave. I have one cabled to the seat frame in case I stop off for beer or two with a bud.

      • Jerry Jones

        Apparently, the background checks and Security Clearances are just for show. Otherwise, how does Hillary Clinton maintain hers?
        I agree with everything you have said, just showing that the clearance is not fool proof, especially when politics get involved.

  • Bill Small

    I agree with trump and Elizabeth hanson

  • Bob Wynne

    My only worry are the remarks he made about barring people on the “no fly” list to purchase guns. This was something he agreed with Hillary about in the first debate.
    That is an arbitrary list with names merely added at the whims of government employees. No one knows how you get on there. No one has the right to find that out (even if they are on the list). You are never notified. There is no conviction or court involvement. There is no appeal process to get off of the list.
    NO PERSON that has not been convicted of a serious crime should lose ANY Constitutional right. I hope someone can make that clear to him.

    • Richard Mansfield

      then that is a no fly list problem not a second amendment problem

      • Bob Wynne

        I just want to make sure I understand your position. Do you really believe that it is not a Second Amendment problem to link a citizens second amendment rights to the “no fly” list?
        That is what the man said he wanted to do. I saw it as a Second Amendment problem and still do not understand my mistake.

        • Frank Stein

          I agree with you, however Trump did say if someone’s on there by mistake, there would be methods to resolve it. Slight mitigation, but still very wrong to deprive someone of rights without due process.

          • PILawyer

            So, take away the right, and then we’ll sort it out later….eventually….or not.

          • Buckshot67

            Right. And hes said worse if you look into his history:“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. (Donald Trump, The America we deserve)
            FULL STOP His own words.

        • Richard Mansfield

          Part of your problem may be that you are trying to think. If you get a DUI you can still drive for 30 days. If your court date is not before that 30 days you automatically lose the right to drive. Where is the due process in that? Having made that point now if you are on a no fly list or terror suspect list you should not be buying guns. If you are on the list by mistake you try to fix it. Why would we scrap a plan that could keep guns out of the hands of bad people? Because a couple people may be negatively effected? smh

          • Buckshot67

            A couple ? A couple???First, for that couple-their rights matter. And I have to tell you its more like thousands. A arbitrary list made up by some bureaucrat thats takes constitutional rights? Absurd. And your making a liberal , progressive “moms against gun violence argument “well take them just in case you do something” BTW, your DEAD WRONG on the DUI argument. You can receive a hardship license ,a nd in many states dont lose a license at all until the conviction date and a judges order. -(except in cases of refusal to submit to tests.) None the less its a non sequitur point-A Driver license- a right to drive, IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Seizing a Constitutional right and a driving privilege- two very different things. We dont punish people in the US for being “suspects or suspected” We have due process-we are all afforded it. Your argument is leftist to the core and the very basis for the liberal anti gun arguments

          • Bob Wynne

            “Why would we scrap a plan that could keep guns out of the hands of bad people?”
            Because it denies rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans with no due process. Because these people have never been convicted of a crime. Because these people have never been charged with a crime. Because most of these people WILL NEVER be charged with a crime. Because these people have never even been notified that they are on the list to try and defend themselves. Because no one even knows how easily a bureaucrat can just add your name or what criteria would land you on the list
            Other than that, I got nothin’..

          • Richard Mansfield

            so it is a no fly list problem. You guys get all amped up when someone says you cant buy a gun. Well I would rather err on the side of caution than say screw it we may offend someone that made it on this no fly list when they cannot buy a gun. Or I guess you guys are all in favor of scrapping the TSA anyway so shit why bother with any kind of security. Well then how about this for ya? You are here as a refugee from syria? You have no identification? Oh you were held at Gitmo for 3 years? Well no problem that line over there is for airplane tickets, that one is for drivers license and that line is for buying as much guns as you want. Oh yeah that line is for fertilizer welcome to America

          • Bob Wynne

            Yes. It is a no-fly list problem. I do not think they should be able to regulate travel without due process. Use the list to justify extra scrutiny after you fix it maybe.
            I do not think you know what “amped up” means. I have only been posting Constitutional considerations to an online comment board. “Amped up” is different somehow.
            When some people say “err on the side of caution” they mean “give up my rights and yours”. Surely you aren’t one of those. Any rational person would realize that my rights are not yours to give up or theirs to take away. That’s kind of what the word means.
            As far as the TSA, they have never stopped a real terrorist threat with any greater efficiency than airport security police could. That function does not need to be under federal control.
            As far as the Syrian you mention, I would have airport security check his bags.

      • Buckshot67

        WEAK. No its 2a problem because its preventing someone from exercise their 2a rights

        • Richard Mansfield

          Pretty good reason you are on the no fly list and until it gets straightened out you shouldnt be buying firearms. Sounds like a pretty simple solution to me. Why would anyone in their right mind think otherwise? I am all for gun rights and also pro hunter but I see no reason you cannot wait a little while to purchase another firearm to go along with the 749 other ones you have stockpiled in your closet. Seems to be no problem with the waiting period in effect now

    • Tom Howe

      I agree. No one can constitutionally lose a right without due process. Placing a person on a list is not in any way due process. He needs to seriously rethink this.

      • paul cuzz

        He said that as a part of it that people would have a way to get off the list.

        • Buckshot67

          Right. The same way some many more are still on it that shouldnt be? Why should I have to petion to get off a list I shouldnt be on anyway to exercise my 2a right?

          • paul cuzz

            I dont disagree but at least if they are going to put people on a no fly list there should be a way to get off that list.

    • Henry Mason

      Well one only has to ask themselves this. What has the no fly list done to stop gun violence? That’s it!

      Now look at all the gun crimes since that went into effect. Did it stop gun crimes that would be a BIG FAT NO!

      So what is its purpose? If you’re not too dumb to be educated the only purpose for the no fly list is the take away rights away from the people that is the bottom line.

      No criminal ever cared about laws!

      Take all the absurd laws in this land and ask what have they done to stop criminals. Now ask what has it done to tie the hands of law abiding citizens.

      My logic scares most liberals so I will wait for you to take your best shot but understand it won’t be a fair fight because I’m armed with knowledge and knowledge is power and most liberals don’t even have a full deck of cards in their arsenal.

    • Mark Patterson

      I agree with all you said except that there (and I could be mistaken) is an appeal process to get off the list. The thing that bugs me is how are people selected to be on it? No charges made, no due process. Seems like a violation of your basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. All Americans are supposed to have due process yet this no fly list seems arbitrary and unconstitutional.

      • TCDrDave

        No appeal provision now and actually no way to know you are on the list until it hits you at the airport.

    • Buckshot67

      Hes said more than that:“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. (Donald Trump, The America we deserve) CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Do you identify more as a Democrat or a Republican?”
      Donald Trump: “Well, you’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. And I think you would probably be shocked at that.” (CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,”)
      FULL STOP His own words.

  • onceproudamerican

    No clause in the Constitution grants the president or the congress any power with regard to firearms. Look for yourself!

    • Wade Mikunda

      This this and this

    • Joe Michel

      there may not be any Constitutional power but the liberal Presidents have been regulating gun rights for the last 35 years. and presidents like Obama pay no mind to the Constitution.and you can bet Clinton will be no different than the crazy gun grabbers in Ca. like Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom(twosome Newsom)

      • Buckshot67

        They dont have direct control over gun rights no-but they can influence policy and do. Executive orders that contradict Constitution rights are worthless

    • Buckshot67

      The president-other than directing policy and very very limited executive order has little authority -the congress..thats another matter They can and do make laws regarding firearms. Its common misconception that because something isnt directly spelled out in the USC that Congress has no authority over it…congress makes laws regarding firearms..How do you think the assault weapon ban was passed under clinton? Who passes the laws? CONGRESS passed it.

  • James Leahy

    Rock and Roll Donald

  • Tom Moss

    He had it absolutely spot on. I hope for America’s sake this man win the presidency. The alternative is unthinkable, not just for the USA but also for the wider world.

  • daseel

    Gullible! You’re right, the Constitution is clear, which includes all of the other amendments as well. His position on the no fly list, and removal of gun rights is a clear violation of not one, but two rights, to bear arms, and due process. Stop with the logical fallacies.

    • Jerry Jones

      Comes down to this: One of them will be President. Which one do you think will be better, not perfect, for gun rights?

      • daseel

        That is not what it comes down to. It comes down to people on the Trump bandwagon are unobjective, biased and possess a lack of critical thinking skills. We all lose regardless of Trump, or Clinton winning because the Constitution will be violated, and our rights removed. My loyalty, and oath to the Constitution stands firm regardless of who is President. My credibility is not up for negotiation.

  • PILawyer

    And yet, he surrendered to Clinton on “No Fly, No Buy”. Apparently “shall not be infringed” doesn’t apply when you merely end up on some arbitrary and secretive list without any due process. This man is a buffoon. Johnson 2016.

  • me

    People will say anything to get elected. Don’t you all know this by now?

    I’d say it’s time to wake up… but it’s too late now. You have 2 choices and either of them will pound your country right in the cornhole.

    God bless America right

  • You go Daddy! Trump 2016!

  • Anthony Shepard

    I live in the police state of California this might help us out a little.

  • Alfred J Orsini

    Bravo, Mr. Trump!

  • 2Persians2

    It will only expand the “privilege” of parents seeing their children gunned down in the classroom, or at the mall, or even while sleeping in their beds at night. It’ll increase the already over-the-top paranoia and over-reaction of our racist and undertrained police, so that we’ll have the “privilege” of seeing our young men of color get slaughtered by police in that age-old, “Shoot first, as questions later” mentality.

  • Nick Boyd

    Mr. Trump’s stand on the 2nd amendment is exactly correct and that’s one of the reasons he has my vote and my trust!

  • NiteGoat

    Then he said that he agrees with Hilary on the “No Fly/No Buy” policy. No thanks. That’s about as unconstitutional as it gets.

  • spoutingoff

    Trump is sinking, he is grasping for something that will get him a block of votes…..

  • puckstop63

    Any society that wholly embraces individual rights to self-protection instantly reduces the violent crime rate dramatically…in some cases near to 100%….especially in crime against women!! A very important concept to promote during an election year!!!

  • Bartholomew Glenn

    Guns????I hate guns that why I just got another one today. Come and take em if you dare.

  • David Laidig

    Yes I agree. Especially a national carry permit. In Florida we have 10 20 life. Some prosecutors go out of their way to deal around it. Should be deal proof

  • Sherry Heim

    I am not voting for Trump but I do agree with him on this one position. I am concerned about his stand on the No-Fly list idea that those people should not be allowed to purchase guns…also his “stop and frisk” plan where guns can be taken away from people who have done nothing illegal and who are not being charged with a crime. Being friendly to one part of the Constitution while stomping on other parts is not the sort of thing I can support in a candidate.

  • Eileen K Jackson

    Better hope he doesn’t flip flop again!

  • Michael Dean Powell

    From a T-Shirt………”God Almighty Gave His Angels Weapons Because the Lord New You Don’t Fight Evil With Tolerance & Understanding”

  • TCDrDave

    This is clear and indicates he respects the Constitution and the people of this nation.

  • Buckshot67

    “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. (Donald Trump, The America we deserve) CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Do you identify more as a Democrat or a Republican?”
    Donald Trump: “Well, you’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat. And I think you would probably be shocked at that.” (CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,”)
    FULL STOP His own words.

  • quinton

    This is great news, protect the second ammendment and deal with mental illness, this man is truly a guineas, America has found a great leader