Donald Trump Says, 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

So, taking guns away from mentally unstable people is a bad thing? I guess a lot of y'all will loose your guns?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: rickymouse

Think of it as more like a person shouting "fire" in a theatre, only he tells everybody he's going to start it, and he has
a couple of gallons of gasoline with him. And matches.

Would we not realize quickly that he is dangerous? Wouldn't we need to act quickly?

Or should we wait a few weeks until we can get a court hearing?

What's the difference? Oh yeah. gunz.

If the person is a threat, then the law should take away the person's guns, not destroy them, just put them in jail for a while till a hearing. Some people should not have guns, but the problem is that through my lifetime, a little given in to those who were against guns resulted in major inconveniences for us hunters. I remember when you needed to sign and have ID just to buy shotgun shells to go bird hunting. Just like now, you have to have ID to buy a Bic Lighter.

I have no problem with requiring people to have background checks to buy an assault type rifle or pistol. But they will make it so you need a background check to buy a squirt gun if someone doesn't keep an eye on them. I have seen precedence at work over the years, give them an inch and they take a mile. On so many different things, not just guns.

originally posted by: weirdguy
So, taking guns away from mentally unstable people is a bad thing?

I guess a lot of y'all will loose your guns?

New word: Mentally Gunstable.

a reply to: matafuchs

You should give the whole meeting a watch, it’s quite brilliant. The hubbub is over Trump spitballing, witch he did with everyone. Trump is basically making the case for a bipartisan solution, to the chagrin of hardcore partisans.

originally posted by: weirdguy
So, taking guns away from mentally unstable people is a bad thing?

I guess a lot of y'all will loose your guns?

I know it's tongue and cheek but that's the very scenario that may play out. Person A makes a claim, person B agrees and that's enough for a warrant, investigation, invasion of your home and confiscation of your property. All without evidence of a crime.

Not to say that this won't stifle crime BUT at what cost? How many folks will have to prove their innocence?

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: angeldoll

I think the police should be able to make a little house call, complete with search warrant. If there's an arsenal there for material evidence, combined with his statements on social media, they should be able to take him to the nearest nut-house. Even against his will. I would totally be in favor of that.

So you are in approval of Trumps words today.


Leave your freedoms at the door and up to the judgement of authority and courts...which are never wrong...ever.

Wow. Think what you think, I don't much care, really. But I hope at some point you'll give some thought to reading comprehension.

In other words, you've no argument.

Um, I have my own words, I have the BEST words, so no need to give me yours.

Saw this coming a billion miles away. If you value your rights, never trust the man in the Oval Office, no matter what he says. In 2018, words are cheaper than dirt.

IOW, if you want to know the truth, you will never find it in the words of people who lie for a living. You will find the truth in what they actually do when they get elected. Trump does not stand for anything. Trump is only a middle man. An automaton, basically. He would not be there if he wasn't controlled.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What is best is how the MSM is running with this as if he is going to order gun seizure in the next week. Quite hilarious and sad at the same time.

I did watch the meeting. What I see is someone who is just open to ideas and again, in the end, he is stating that it will be up to Congress to vote on it. Just like DACA. Just like Healthcare. The way it should be.

Then, when it does not pass, he can say we tried and we move on.

a reply to: olaru12

Yup that kind of talk will be the reason they take some people's guns.
Trump is a Clinton plant I said it all along there are no left and right just those at the top and the rest of us little people.
I can see s bright future for ATS where we are all united against them all.

a reply to: matafuchs

I said in another thread.

His words are the stuff of which dreams are made. Come the morrow, they fade away.

Hie thee hence, damned words!

a reply to: testingtesting

I can see s bright future for ATS where we are all united against them all.

I doubt it. To many cultist that will follow any and all authority figures if he/she appeals to their ideology. I'm beginning to think it's genetic and not even an intellectual decision. I hold in evidence religion and professional wrestling.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: weirdguy
So, taking guns away from mentally unstable people is a bad thing?

I guess a lot of y'all will loose your guns?

I know it's tongue and cheek but that's the very scenario that may play out. Person A makes a claim, person B agrees and that's enough for a warrant, investigation, invasion of your home and confiscation of your property. All without evidence of a crime.

Not to say that this won't stifle crime BUT at what cost? How many folks will have to prove their innocence?

Reagan 1989

but Trump mentions the same thing and it's the end of the world?

a reply to: weirdguy

He's talking specifically about automatic weapons. Such are highly regulated.

Different topic. I guess.

a reply to: weirdguy

We're not talking about AK-47's or machine guns, which by and large are already banned.

a reply to: Phage

Different topic. I guess.

No, same topic. Questions after a school shooting.

The question about protecting sportsman's rights to hunting rifles and shotguns while banning military-type rifles and carbines and large capacity magazines led to the official name for the 10 year assault rifle ban of 1994: Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act

Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 34 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. with a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle
...
In May 1994, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns". They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons.
Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Background

a reply to: theantediluvian

In a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales for some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.

Gotta love how even when Trump is doing what they've asked for, it must be because he's veering wildly from the "playbook". No doubt there's also a Russian playbook which he keeps in his back pocket. Also I see nothing particularly bad about what he's suggesting here, more backgrounds checks is good, keeping them from mentally ill people is good, and raising the age from 18 to 21 doesn't seem so controversial considering that you must be 21 in the U.S. to buy alcohol... as for the assault rifle thing I don't really think a ban would change much at all.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

How that comes as a surprise to anyone is, quite frankly, beyond my comprehension.

He's a lifelong democrat. Now it stands revealed to anyone not completely beyond reason.

Any support I had for him is gone. Now my eye is on Congress, most particularly the Washington Congressional bunch, and those from Tennessee, where I'll be moving to soon, dammit.

a reply to: theantediluvian

NRA script.

Due process isn't an NRA invention.

It's frankly disturbing and I'm hoping it will finally snap a few among Trump's supporters out of their stupors.

And go where exactly? In to the embracing arms of the anti gun left?

Constitutional rights don't seem to have any allies.

a reply to: pthena

I stand corrected.
The AK in question was indeed a semi. The point is valid. Reagan was a gun grabber.

a reply to: olaru12

I'm a glass half full type of guy today. I can dream!.