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

a reply to: violet

Actually, Dick's has stopped selling semi-automatic guns entirely. In addition to selling any guns to anyone under 21.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose.

I guess that means they will have to raise the age to 21 for anyone joining the military. I wonder how the MIC will deal with that?

Soldiers have to buy their own weapons?

Well, if it's just a matter of buying then it's an easy law to get around.

"Thank you for your early birthday gift of cash. Here is a late Christmas gift of a rifle."

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That's correct.
But no one gave Cruz his rifle.

a reply to: Phage

I'm afraid that I don't have a patriotic American answer for that.
I don't view the Revolution as essential. Canada did not revolt. They are an independent nation now.
Chances are, I can see myself as a Tory during the war, if alive back then.

Not an acceptable answer, I know. But then I'm not in office, or running for office.

a reply to: Phage

Oh I see, thank god we have the NRA keeping our kids safe.

a reply to: Phage
Yes I edited my post and now Walmart has joined in.

Well, this just beats it all.

One minute, Trump is a child murderer because he won't ban guns.

Now, he is an authoritarian because he says that people deemed under suspicion of going out on a shooting spree have guns taken away before they go through 'due process'.

What exactly is 'due process' here? The last idea from the left was to have people put on a register by a doctor. Is that the 'due process' people are talking about here????

Once again we see that the big issue Democrats claim to care about, in this case dead kids, is not what they care about at all. What they care about is power and control, and nothing comes second to that.

Interesting the way the OP makes it sound as if 'due process' in general and in a legal sense is under attack - a complete fabrication, but when did that ever stop a propagandist.

FWIW, I think he is wrong on this issue, but don't worry, I suspect your legal system will be A-OK and you won't be getting convicted of crimes without due process. Just a hunch.

a reply to: theantediluvian

When I read about Trump's statements, I knew I had to come back to ATS to see how the Trumpsters responded.

Sorry, I have to get this out of my system:

Pres'dent Trump is commin' ta git yer guns!!

Please forgive my impertinence. That was the first thing that came to my mind after I read this. Then I fell on the floor laughing so hard that I nearly crapped my pants.

To some extent, I believe what he said is a good indication of his true feelings on the matter. But once his far-right advisers instruct him on how he is supposed to think on this matter, he'll change his tune and fall in line.

I predict that nothing that he said today will he support tomorrow.

-dex

a reply to: UKTruth

One minute Republicans are calling Democrats crazy and delusional for wanting gun restrictions and guns taken away, the next they are cheering on a man who says to do exactly that.

Do you see how that can easily go both ways? That's how it usually works with these political issues these days, no matter what happens there are hypocrites on both sides. That couldn't possibly be intentional could it?

a reply to: UKTruth

Is that the 'due process' people are talking about

No. Due process is that which is discussed in the Constitution. Presumably.
It is not police taking guns (or any other legally owned property) from people without legal authority.

More of what he said

"You're afraid of the NRA. Some of you people are petrified of the NRA. They have great power over you people. They have less power over me."

abcnews.go.com...

By morning he will saying the opposite

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Is that the 'due process' people are talking about

No. Due process is that which is defined in the Constitution. Presumably.
It is not police taking guns (or any other legally owned property) from people without legal authority.

It would be a sheriff with a court order wouldn’t it?

a reply to: UKTruth

It’s another does of Trump using his first amendment to attack the 4th amendment in order to undermine the second amendment. It’s 5d Go Fish.

What most people are missing is this point - Entire constitution is written to make sure people's rights are not violated without due process from over reaching powers of the government. Now it is exactly what is happening infront of eyes, due process be gone.

Trump is the perfect example of how far America has fallen. We had leaders who were scholars and wrote constitution and warned us about guys like Trump who wants to take away due process. Now we have a tv watching reality tv host who don't read (let alone read Constitution) , who can't even write properly tweet few words, constantly goes after court system, 1st amendment and now 2nd.

double post

a reply to: UKTruth

Quite a decent number of members on this site have declared numerous times that if the government pass laws and try to take their guns they will fight back with whatever force is necessary, should a law pass they will be some of the first on the list, these people may not be a threat to other people however they are a threat to the government.....

originally posted by: violet

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Is that the 'due process' people are talking about

No. Due process is that which is defined in the Constitution. Presumably.
It is not police taking guns (or any other legally owned property) from people without legal authority.

It would be a sheriff with a court order wouldn’t it?

Yes. If there is a law which allows it, the court can issue an order which law enforcement can carry out.

Due process.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

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.

When I read that, it made me think of the 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell:

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

The SCOTUS never overturned that ruling, so technically such a law could conceivably be enacted.

-dex

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

That's correct.
But no one gave Cruz his rifle.

True. He could have been given the rifle, stolen it, bought it, or "found" it. Which makes this another law based on emotion which has no effect on the problem it is supposed to alleviate. Much like the Patriot Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a dozen other laws sold to the American public under the premise of trading rights for a false sense of security.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

He could have been given the rifle, stolen it, bought it, or "found" it.

He bought it. Legally. It is known where he bought it, and when.