The only candidate with a net positive view among black Americans is Ben Carson (net favorable of 4). Among the candidates that at least 50% are familiar with: *Trump - 20% favorable, 68% unfavorable (88% familiar) *Jeb Besh - 21% favorable, 51% unfavorable (73% familiar) *Chris Christie - 23% favorable, 38% unfavorable (61% familiar) *Rick Perry - 13% favorable, 41% unfavorable (54% familiar) *Mike Huckabee - 16% favorable, 35% unfavorable (51% familiar)
It's worth noting that the only candidates here that ever really gave solid showings among black voters are Huckabee (48% of the black vote in 1998), Christie (21% in 2013), and Kasich (26% in 2014). To be fair, if Trump could somehow hold the 20% favorable and get all of them to vote for him, he would win. A Republican that won 20% of the black vote would be virtually impossible to beat.
Beck has gradually shifted into nonsense, but I swear by Arguing with Idiots. One of the best resources against liberalism/progressivism I've seen. His books really aren't bad. It's on radio where he lets the crazy stuff out.
He's onto a nugget of an idea: both parties in the US are, globally speaking, quite similar. Specifically, both are liberal. Republicans are economic liberals, Democrats are social liberals. In theory, both draw from the tradition of classical liberalism, but with different interpretations: economic liberals see the best way to ensure individual freedom as being through a free market and small government, while social liberals see the best way to ensure individual freedom as being through a mixed economy with social safety nets. The focus on the individual is what separates both economic and social liberalism from traditional socialism (collectivist) and traditional conservatism (the good of society and the state). I would argue both parties could be considered big-tent, centrist parties internationally. Republican fiscal policy is fairly mainstream for modern economic liberals (namely, lower taxes, cut spending), and socially the party doesn't support a state church, monarchy, rigid social hierarchy, or many of the international traditional institutions of society. In fact, it actively seeks to change many institutions or practices to benefit individuals. Similarly, Democratic fiscal policy is mainstream, center-left stuff, and socially it mainstream progressive.
This doesn't mean both parties are the same. They aren't. Their governance results in broadly different outcomes, both domestically and internationally. But, unlike in Europe, where the fundamental split is between conservatives/liberals and socialists - beliefs with vastly different desires and preconceptions - the parties here both derive from a similar school of thought.
What if you need your gun immediately, to respond to a domestic threat? Conducted by who? How would such tests be unbiased given clear bias shown against certain groups by the IRS as well as may-issue Conducted by who? Who is paying? How would such tests be unbiased? What if there are no psychologists within reasonable area? Yes.
You have to factor in intent as well. After all, the founders wrote the second amendment, and then the Federalists tried to restrict speech. There are limits to things - but a general ban on guns certainly qualifies as an infringement on the individual right to keep and bear arms. Restrictions on things like flamethrowers, nukes, etc, that serve no practical use in personal defense or hunting, most likely wouldn't fall under protection of an amendment mainly aimed at those purposes.
I appreciate that, you're not a bad poster either. TBH though I like teeray a bit better than you, though. :P But that assumes I grew up in a family that always held that view, correct? Except I didn't. My family didn't even own a gun until a few years ago. Our extended family only has a few guns, from what I can tell - the two I know of specifically are one my grandfather owned (and barely ever used and disassembled when he came down with Parkinson's), and one an uncle owned. Neither were of my attention until a few years ago. Nobody in my circle really shot guns, hunted, or cared about them. Guns were never a thing for me growing up. And that's part of the problem with intersectionality - you give broad generalizations of groups, which only very rarely match up with what actually happens. That makes sense to believe for someone not adhering to an individualist philosophy. However, I'm not a collectivist, I'm an individualist.
And that 'context' is invariably ruled by liberal judges to favor their political views. 'Living constitution' is a sham. Scalia has stated the amendment applies only to arms you can carry by hand. Even then, the right isn't unlimited.