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

a reply to: Phage

Sounds good.

a reply to: Phage
Restraining orders are useless

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: 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. There are five states which allow this.

This I could agree with as long as the definitions are defined as such in the law. Keyword being displaying. Displaying an action that could easily become probable cause.

a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I never thought I would say this.

Anti your post is spot on.

Trump lost a good supporter today with his behavior. Nobody fought for our rights.

I will support a 3rd party independent from this point on.

I've never been so disapointed.

I was pumped, fof the first timr, in a long time that someone was going to MAGA.

His actions reflect he is a shill, and you were right.

(Passes out and falls over)

...But Clinton would have sucked a bigger egg, lol

I thought the same as you earlier but then I remembered. This guy Cruz posted online that he was going to do what he did before he did it. In that case, yes take the guns then worry about due process later.

I now don't think he's referring to normal people

a reply to: JinMI
That's the job of the court.
That's where due process comes into it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

Surely it would not have been hard for him to get more guns?

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: theantediluvian
I was surprised he said this But I got the impression he was talking about cases like Cruz..

Lets be honest that guy should have never been allowed to keep his guns due process be damned.

Where do you draw the line...? Spousal abuse, DUI conviction, Reckless driving, Psychological therapy, What is the criteria for being a responsible adult and cleared to own firearms?

Trump opened a big ole can o worms, eh?

Yup. Maybe persons who said on conspiracy sites, such ad ATS, that they keep lists of names, and by November, or hunting season, the list is pretty full, of persons who piss ‘em off, and then, when aiming at a buck, they transpose the faces of their enemies onto the critter before the big squeeze, and they feel alls better then.

Or, I know, all the persons who admitted to liking cannabis, but aren’t listed on the medical program yet? The feds are running nonstop datamining honeypots this very day, which present themselves as recreational user friendly depots....they must have hundreds of thousands of names. Background checks, people. Use them here.

How about all those guys whose sister or spouse called cops because they were having an argument? And they were scared, or maybe somebody down the line was given a slight nudge to list it as a domestic on the transcripts. Must be lots of those.

The dispatcher gets things all wrong when I used to hear my name come through the air, when I was scrapping in trash cans for metal. Tell me again, miss, how I was seen ‘bursting out of the rear of the house under construction’, liar. God damned liar. I began to see just how dirty things were on that day. I was coming back from Trader Joes with some fine chocolate and coffee, and spotted a piece of red scrap metal perhaps worth a nickel, in the alley, along the fence protecting the property. I stopped for a few seconds to look at it and never opened the door of my car because it started raining and it was not worth it, and there were better finds if I look before it rains harder, being trash day and all, and especially since in front of me a pickup was wanting to get into the alley. When I got home, I heard on the scanner (I was hardly paying attention) that I was seen bursting from the rear of the house, and driving off wildly....all of which caused me to track down the builder (in the truck) who admitted he called police, followed me for a few blocks as I zagged a few streets scanning for scrap finds, and called police when I got home a few blocks away, but only said I was a suspicious vehicle hanging around his site, and that he’d been burgled recently, all of which was which was true. He did not say I was in the house, or ever left my car, but the dispatcher did, so something was up and I gave the dispatcher hell, threatening to sue. There seemed to be a repeat pattern of this on behalf of the police. Eventually I found it expedient to visit the Mayor, who retired shortly after.

Once, while googling (name of my city+ police corruption), on a sheer whim I had never once considered, a 4.3 rolled the house the very second I hit enter. First time I did this. Earthquakes never hit near Chicago (which sealed it for me, but I ain’t a member in good standing of the local Country Club just yet). This one did, and in timely fashion. Is this part of background checks as well? Due process, what’s that? What will my mother in law think when she finds this dispatch tapeworm segment dangling from Living Lucifer’s everpresent anus? Will she understand how to interpret this? Her little girl must be protected from the bad crazy parvenu wannabees, after all.

Anyways, police channels are now encrypted where I live; I no longer hear it. They said too many persons were monitoring police activity. To be specific, the mayor of Elk Grove Village said this, in the arguments for encryption, which has been in place in Canada for years already. They will arrest one for monitoring police. His name is Craig Johnson. Source: The Journal, article entitled “Fading Away”
Weds, JULY 31, 2013, page 3A.

Let’s get those jokers who made stupid self aggrandizing boasts about being able to shoot someone, anyone, on 5th Avenue in NYC, because everyone loves him, sounds pretty nuts to me, no?

Or any looney who suspects his privacy has been wildly invaded, to public applause, and steepened in secrecy, of course should be locked up...even before he or she speaks out on this.
Why should we wait? T’is a powderkeg. Steven King, and Hollywood, warned us about this so many times.

How about some guy who says a couple of blasts of visine in his boss’s coffee would be great. Imagine if he were to have a gun.

I think the homeless, and the poor, and anyone in a spiritual search for God or something instead of wealth and stuff should be considered crazy, because they’ll be too remiss to realize health plans don’t touch dental, not even God’s, and anyone with no cell phone too, on account they have their head up their ass = not in touch, or else believes excited channeled ions are a part of the MK thing. F them. Put em in a cell with an extremely versatile and high frequency smart electricity valve. Talk like this makes me nervous. They deserve it.

Also, folks who believe, discuss, or otherwise entertain, or give host to, for a even a second these weird freakish conspiracy theories about false flags, 911, sandyhook = CP witness protection community etc... Plus, deniers. All of ‘em. Climate change, holocaust, holomodor, ufos you name it. If they aren’t with us, or make us nervous, they are nuts. Anderson Cooper went on his Africa trip and saw dead bodies before he came out as a expert on this stuff, and a homosexual. BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO! All we want is the cops to do their job and disarm anyone who is crazy!

We could go on forever I guess. But it will be up to the cops. I mean centralized police state.

# 941

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

Surely it would not have been hard for him to get more guns?

Depends on the law, I suppose.

a reply to: theantediluvian

And finally, the penny drops

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

No but there should be. I think it was known he was planning to do this. His guns should have been seized or he shouldn’t have been able to get them in the first place

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

Surely it would not have been hard for him to get more guns?

Depends on the law, I suppose.

Since when have laws stopped people getting guns?

a reply to: violet

I agree.

Do you think Florida will pass a law that will allow that to happen next time?

a reply to: Phage

But I'm all for "red flag" laws.

I have to wonder how this would jive with the 4th and 14 amendments.

The 4th and 14 Amendments are quite clear on the circumstances by which a citizen can have his or her rights revoked.

It may be seen as a method of creating "pre-crime" legislation by which people would be punished without having committed a criminal act.

I have learned to have slippery slope arguments, and I am not trying to engage in one. Because, in principle, I don't necessarily disagree with "red flag" laws as a concept, however, I do disagree with taking a right away from someone without a trial by jury for formal charges, which these laws circumvent.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

Surely it would not have been hard for him to get more guns?

Depends on the law, I suppose.

Since when have laws stopped people getting guns?

There are plenty of examples. Just ask the NRA.

a reply to: projectvxn

Due process requires neither jury nor trial.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet
Confiscating Cruz's guns might not have been.
I know of no law which would have allowed that. Do you?

Surely it would not have been hard for him to get more guns?

Depends on the law, I suppose.

Since when have laws stopped people getting guns?

There are plenty of examples. Just ask the NRA.

The NRA have control over illegal guns too?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No.
But they have plenty of examples of people who tried and couldn't buy guns.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: violet

I agree.

Do you think Florida will pass a law that will allow that to happen next time?

No. Nothing will happen as per.

One thing I saw today was the sporting goods store Dick’s or whatever it’s called that sold him a gun ( not a rifle or one he used in the shooting) has raised the age for buying guns in their store. They’ve made their own rule. Perhaps others may follow suit and do the same?

EDIT
WALMART has joined in

Walmart, the biggest gun seller, announced late in the afternoon that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age. It also said it would no longer sell items resembling assault-style rifles, including toys and air guns. Early in the day, Dick’s said it was immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores. The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and would also require any gun buyer to be at least 21, regardless of local laws.

www.nytimes.com...

I think some of you miss where they talk about 'states' also.

In California, there is a law where a family member can state another family is at risk with guns and they lose them for a period up to one year.

There are already 4 states like this. L:eave it to the states. It is not a Federal Issue. You have the right to a firearm based on Federal Law. If State Law differs it looks like it will end up in the Supreme Court.