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

originally posted by: JinMI
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.

I can definitely see the concern here, but on the other hand if we want to acknowledge mental illness as a major cause of the problem then the solution must some how incorporate that. If a person has a long documented history of depression or mental health issues and is actively consuming pharmaceutical drugs, it should be more difficult for them to acquire a gun.

a reply to: matafuchs

Since I didn't vote for the man, and I've always held the notion he was a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Wish I could say I was surprised by the words that came out of his mouth today...but deep down, I wasn't.

It's going to take a lot of talking to make me forget this one. I'm listening, I'm watching, and frankly, it's getting rather tiresome. Not just him, either.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: weirdguy

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

Indeed they are. But we're really just splitting hairs when we're arguing about the difference between a semi with a 30 round magazine and a full auto.

The point is the semi can fire fast enough as it is. The point that a gun control advocate is going to go for is that if a criminal has a semi automatic weapon and his victims are unarmed, he might as well have a full auto weapon.

So, in giving away and banning full auto, the semi auto ban was inevitable. Unfortunately, you can't compromise with people who want to take your rights. If you compromise, they advance. And by the time you catch up to them, they're ready to advance again.

Can't say we didn't tell you so. I'm not surprised in the least.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Sure. They should be put on a list as taking the drugs and having the history. Also, a proper channel to go through to be removed from that list.

Should say ChaoticOrder have some sort of issue with me for whatever reason, multiple calls to my home that results in some list that I've not been notified of without any recourse to be removed from is my concern.

a reply to: projectvxn

They don't, do they?

The President just lent, if not overt support, it was certainly tacit support to those who want regulation/banning of handguns and rifles. If not this legislation, then there will be other legislation--y'know that common sense stuff we keep hearing about...

a reply to: BrianFlanders

So, in giving away and banning full auto, the semi auto ban was inevitable. Unfortunately, you can't compromise with people who want to take your rights. If you compromise, they advance. And by the time you catch up to them, they're ready to advance again.

Nor do I wish to. I do however take issue with the rampant ignorance to the topic which has folks vehemently touting as some kind of logic.

This is an agenda driven issue and that agenda is political, not safety for children or anyone else for that matter.

a reply to: seagull

But any regulation of guns is just wrong.
Right?

It's hardening of targets we need. Oh, yeah, and mental health stuff.
Thoughts and prayers, too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I support that. Trump is right in this case.
And he even earned a bit respect for not bending to the NRA.

a reply to: Peeple


4th amendment be damned.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: JinMI
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.

I can definitely see the concern here, but on the other hand if we want to acknowledge mental illness as a major cause of the problem then the solution must some how incorporate that. If a person has a long documented history of depression or mental health issues and is actively consuming pharmaceutical drugs, it should be more difficult for them to acquire a gun.

OK. Here's your assignment for the day. Go and read a psychology book on every single "mental illness". The real book. The ones the doctors have to read. But make sure you set aside a large chunk of time because it's gonna take a while to read all that. Once you're done with that you can come back and tell me how many people you personally know who are not "mentally ill".

It's like this. Let's say we pass a new law that says something along the lines of "Inferior people are not allowed to breed". OK. Almost sounds reasonable in a way. I mean, if you didn't know any better, you might support that under certain circumstances.

So let's say they were to pass a law like that (let's not argue over whether or not this would ever actually happen. Let's just say it happened for the sake of argument). Now let's let that stew for a while. A law like that gets passed and the objections to it are ignored as paranoia or what have you. Now let's say 20 years have passed and that law is still on the books. Let's say that in all the intervening years, the law has been used with sensible restraint. Or so it appears.

Let's just say the law has not been overtly abused in any way that people would notice. But in the shadows, the medical definition for "inferior" has been getting more and more broad and vague and it's almost to the point to where anyone could qualify for that "diagnosis" if someone who was motivated to find them unfit for breeding had the inclination.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Probably not but I tried.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Once you're done with that you can come back and tell me how many people you personally know who are not "mentally ill".

For extra credit. What percentage of people who are mentally ill, kill other people?


I don't think mental illness is a good predictor, in general.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So, in giving away and banning full auto, the semi auto ban was inevitable. Unfortunately, you can't compromise with people who want to take your rights. If you compromise, they advance. And by the time you catch up to them, they're ready to advance again.

Nor do I wish to. I do however take issue with the rampant ignorance to the topic which has folks vehemently touting as some kind of logic.

This is an agenda driven issue and that agenda is political, not safety for children or anyone else for that matter.

Oh, no doubt. I've never seen Donald Trump or any other politician shed a genuine tear over anything. And yes. I remember Obama's fake tears after Sandy Hook (I think it was). I said a genuine tear.

a reply to: Phage

It's just temporary. After he went through evaluation he might get a personal social worker if there is nothing wrong his stuff back.
What is wrong with that?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Phage

It's just temporary. After he went through evaluation he might get a personal social worker if there is nothing wrong his stuff back.
What is wrong with that?

Ever heard of the thought police? That's what's wrong with it.

a reply to: Peeple

What's wrong is the idea that mental illness alone is a good predictor.

But I'm all for "red flag" laws. If someone is displaying behaviors which indicate a threat to themselves or others (mental illness does not qualify) the court should be able to order their guns removed. There are five states which allow this.

a reply to: seagull

The President just lent, if not overt support, it was certainly tacit support to those who want regulation/banning of handguns and rifles.

Uh, No. He explicitly backs raising the age limit for purchasing long guns to 21 to match the age limit for purchasing hand guns. He sounded positive about making a comprehensive bill by putting together Manchen-Toomey with Feinstein's proposal (assault style semi-auto ban similar to 1994 ban).

I don't recall the U.S. becoming a gun free zone during 1994-2004. If the ban is repeated, it probably won't have any worse outcome than it did previously.

It may be pure mythology but, The former colonists with their squirrel guns fought off the World's greatest empire equipped with mass produced military grade muskets; hence the USA.

originally posted by: Phage

But I'm all for "red flag" laws. If someone is displaying behaviors which indicate a threat to themselves or others (mental illness does not qualify) the court should be able to order their guns removed.

Is overeating to the point of morbid obesity enough to get someone on the witch list? I mean, after all, that is definitely behavior which is a threat to the person themselves.

a reply to: pthena

It may be pure mythology but, The former colonists with their squirrel guns fought off the World's greatest empire equipped with mass produced military grade muskets; hence the USA.

What does that have to do with mass murder?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Phage

But I'm all for "red flag" laws. If someone is displaying behaviors which indicate a threat to themselves or others (mental illness does not qualify) the court should be able to order their guns removed.

Is overeating to the point of morbid obesity enough to get someone on the witch list? I mean, after all, that is definitely behavior which is a threat to the person themselves.

The topic is guns. Atherosclerosis is seldom a factor in murder/suicides.