Here he goes.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
i watched the entire conference and did not hear president Trump utter anything that i'm concerned about.
Click to expand...

We must have been watching two different things. If Obama said this I have a feeling the headlines on foxnews would be much different than they are today.

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Trump

"Sometime we have to fight the NRA" - Trump

"But you have to be very, very powerful on background checks," he continued. "Don't be shy. Very strong on mentally ill." - Trump
 
Lohman446 said:
I have no problem adjusting the age of majority to 21 and including the right to own firearms in it. Also the right to vote, the right to enter civil or legal contracts, and various other things. I'm against moving it on firearms as a single line item. Either you are an adult citizen or you are not.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. I think the scariest thing I have seen in this whole debate is the willingness to treat the 2nd as a standalone and often times lesser right.

Imagine the explosion if the president had suggested that we take away all constitutional rights prior to due process instead of just the 2nd? Pandemonium......
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
The options here are:
1) Trump actually does want more gun control, in which case we have a big problem.
2) Trump is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship to sink this gun control effort and get some good press from people who hate him anyway.
Click to expand...

There is a third possibility: 3) He isn't really concerned about the result of the process, but he wants to be involved in it so the result can't be characterized as a loss for him.
 
Aguila Blanca, thanks for the link. I sent him my thoughts and even stated I would love to talk to him in person on the matter at hand. Probably have a better chance at hitting Lotto.


Fire up your browsers. If you're here, it's already active. Go to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Click to expand...

I have no problem adjusting the age of majority to 21 and including the right to own firearms in it. Also the right to vote, the right to enter civil or legal contracts, and various other things. I'm against moving it on firearms as a single line item. Either you are an adult citizen or you are not.
Click to expand...

Then throw in 21 to enter the military, or are those 18 year old different?
 
Imagine the explosion if the president had suggested that we take away all constitutional rights prior to due process instead of just the 2nd? Pandemonium......
Click to expand...

You mean like the right of free travel of non-citizens? I don't think I actually have to even imagine that.
 
A lot of people want to demonize Trump as a right-wing nut, but like a lot of Americans he is really a moderate. Also, like a lot of Americans Trump is not a gun guy. Like them he supports the Second Amendment, but also supports gun control. Sadly, he is also like many Americans in that they just don't understand guns, how criminals obtain guns and the fact that most of these proposals will only hurt law abiding citizens and not criminals.
 
I think Trump will let the likes of Finestein, Schumer & Pelosi and the other Democrat grabbers to load up a bill with any stuff on their wish list so it has absolutely no chance of passing. Then he can say...well, I tried.
 
I made that point in another thread. Very easy for lawmakers to score points with their bases by drawing up legislation and taking tough "no compromise" positions when discussing legislation that will never be passed.
 
Thallub said:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." - Trump
Click to expand...
If some threatens deadly harm his guns should be confiscated ASAP. That is the Indiana law and i don't have a problem with that.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ork/355132002/
Click to expand...

Threatening deadly harm while not engaged in legitimate defense of self or others is a crime. It is not a departure from due process for the police to take control of a defendant's property involved in a crime subsequent to arrest.

DJT's words suggest something different to many of us. It suggests that police take action for which they would ordinarily require a warrant, but disregard that requirement and get the warrant after they act.
 
This guy had the news media and virtually everyone in this country steppin and fetching throughout the primary and ever since.
It was a deliberate action that proved very effective.
Relax folks, not everything is what it is assumed to be.
I accept that I’m in the minority with my opinion but the POTUS is not the threat to be worrying about regardless of what it sounds like.
 
I think something that has to be understood, though it does spill over into the other areas this is not supposed to be about.

I watched the grand meeting on immigration that was a mirror of the meeting on the gun issues. I read the exerts of that one.

Its clear that he does not have a grasp of issues like the gun issue. Its not solely guns, but in this case the reflection is on guns. He thinks he is being a wheeler dealer with anything on the table by agreeing to the last thing mentioned even if it contradict the item before it.

Crib notes for the Parkland meeting bear into it, this also reflects on what he is.

I have yet to see him actually have a grasp on any issue including this one.

Talking about taking someone's gun illegally so cavalierly is more reflective of Duardo in the Philippines (and killing drug dealers). Clearly that is not toing to happen here.

In short he will throw gun owners under the bus if it gets him some kind of glory (at leas tin his mind). Democrats may be the boogey person) they at least believe in the rule of law and the process even if you disagree on the law in questions.

Like a majority of gun owners, I would like a discussion and looking into various aspects of some restraint on guns that does not take them away.

If that is a licensing process, non high capacity magazines, gun sales restricted until 21, a community background check.

Any law can be sun settled in 5 to 10 years.

I know one guy is a serious gun owner that thinks ARs should have a 2k tax on them.

In the end, this country gets handed off to a new generation, its going to be something other than white majority and its going to go where they take it not us.

We are seeing a shift in access to the public. The NRA model is no longer the only one in town, NRA does not control social media and they are not remotely good at it.

The Parkland kids got ahead on the issue and they have maintained it. That's the new generation. They are vastly more media savy that I was in high school and they have the tools to get that message out and across.
 
What is

Originally Posted by RC20
...a community background check.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I suspect it is something to the effect of this, the OP description in the "NOT gun control" thread...

Onward Allusion:
- Instituting a background check that actually performs more than a lookup against a DB? How hard is it to look up social media, medical records (insurance companies do it all the time), restraining orders, # of legal complaints, # of DUIs, lawsuits, or arrest records, to name a few. Purchase pay a $20 fee for each transaction that funds the background check and mental programs. Too poor? Ok, show your SNAP card or Medicaid card. Perfect solution? Er, hell no. A Start? Maybe.
Click to expand...

Which is not a background check at all. This is a background investigation.
 
How hard is it to look up medical records? Because of HIPAA laws it is EXTREMELY difficult. Doctor / patient confidentiality clauses make it a bigger issues then just the laws in place as well.

It goes further: How many of you would not go see a psychologist or therapist for issues if you knew it MIGHT impact your ability to own a firearm?
 
^^^I'm not advocating for any of that. You should not have to endure an investigation to enjoy a constitutional right. That was the proposal in another thread. The NICS system should be fixed so that all Federal, State, and Local governments report to it; and there is severe consequences for failing to report. That's the extent of my agreement in updating the background check system.
 
Apologies if you've answered this elsewhere.

What is
Click to expand...

Very fair question and I do not have a solid answer.

I work with and on machinery that can kill people (think boilers and the explosive power of water when heated and suddenly release)

We build in layers of safety.

What I am seeing in Sandy Hook and Parkland is local knowledge of a persons mental status vs being in a national data base.

I think that is another layer, I don't have firm views on how to structure it and how to legalize it.

My boilers have 4 safeties on them. Each one allows for a failure of the other safeties to keep it from blowing up (a 50 gallon water heater blew out a full sized classroom adjacent in Oklahoma when the safety was replaced and the probe cut to make it fit)

Mechanism are also needed to restore the guns and legal ones not just a grab to take away.

Can you do a FISA thing and do an emergency order and then follow up with a review process? I don't know but just taking and how to go about that is not the full answer.

We see where all police have to do is classify someone as a drug dealer and they can seize property without any recourse and that truly is unconstitutional.
 
How hard is it to look up medical records? Because of HIPAA laws it is EXTREMELY difficult. Doctor / patient confidentiality clauses make it a bigger issues then just the laws in place as well.

It goes further: How many of you would not go see a psychologist or therapist for issues if you knew it MIGHT impact your ability to own a firearm?
Click to expand...

My take on HIPPA is the only one that can't see my records are myself. Everything else seems to have been hacked and open to anyone in the world.

Second part is the reason that a restoral process should be in place. What do you put into a law that allows gun removal as a reason that is not arbitrary and what do you allow as restoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top