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

[NirvanaFan]

I've voted for the Libertarian nominee for President, long before it was fashionable to be libertarian, but now understand how worthless that vote truly was in effect.

Of course it was worthless in NY. Just like a vote for the Republican presidential candidate is worthless. Obviously, you can refuse to answer this, but do you vote for the Libertarian guy or the Republican guy now? A vote for the Republican is probably more worthless. At least by voting for a 3rd party, you can show that you're not happy with either major candidate.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Of course it was worthless in NY. Just like a vote for the Republican presidential candidate is worthless. Obviously, you can refuse to answer this, but do you vote for the Libertarian guy or the Republican guy now? A vote for the Republican is probably more worthless. At least by voting for a 3rd party, you can show that you're not happy with either major candidate.

Do you think anyone really looks at that? The rhinos couldn't care less. They'll do what they'll do. I think it's a wasted vote either way unless the turn out is large like for Reagan. But if you vote 3rd party during that large turnout that you have no way of knowing if it will happen. You'll never get this by voting 3rd party.

 

[GuyMontag]

NF, I'm largely in agreement with you and Darth in theory, but in effect my vote is worthless and I accept it.

I've voted Conservative Party for a long time on the state level as protest vote to the Pubs, but in a state where we're outnumbered 2:1 by Dems, you'd better get used to the idea of RARELY if ever not getting screwed on Election Day. Our state has NO mechanism for voter redress, we can't even recall legislators or have OPEN party conventions, so please forgive my fatalism.

 

[Darth]

At least you'd be happy with your vote.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

I have personally given this much thought. The founding fathers left us a great gift, knowing full well that in the future, the fate and direction of the country would ultimately be left up to the people. Much has changed since I was born in 1960. What was once unthinkable, is now commonplace. I inherited the NFA of 1934, and to a degree the GCA of 1968, as I was only 8 years old. I DO remember the public outcry when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were both shot. The degree to which our rights can be exercised is balanced on the scale of justice against general public safety and civil order. They are also subject to the court of public opinion. That is why there is an amendment process.

Laws are not in and of themselves a 100% solution to any problem. Laws only define behavioral standards of any civilized society. Sadly, no law ever passed will prevent the next murder, the next rape, or the next robbery. To my mind, these mass shootings are nothing short of random domestic terrorism.

Any potential restriction of a Constitutional right by legislation should require very solemn and rational debate. There are, thankfully, safeguards in place. Things happen slowly in ole DC for a reason. The US Constitution bestows authority to regulate interstate commerce to the Federal Government. It also recognizes, NOT grants, but recognizes our 2A right to keep and bear arms, the main purpose for an armed civilian population (militia) being the ability to defend our freedom. We also have the 5A due process and just compensation protections. Both the States and the People have 10th amendment rights.

One thing's for sure. The American public, including myself, is sick and tired of turning on the news and hearing about school children being murdered in cold blood. Sure wish I was smart enough to offer a solution to the problem. Instead, we will have to wait and see what our elected representatives have to offer. God help us all, and God bless the USA.

 

[NirvanaFan]

Do you think anyone really looks at that? The rhinos couldn't care less. They'll do what they'll do. I think it's a wasted vote either way unless the turn out is large like for Reagan. But if you vote 3rd party during that large turnout that you have no way of knowing if it will happen, you'll never get this.

If there was a mass vote away from the Republican candidate of say, 15%, towards a Libertarian candidate, you really think the Republicans would just continue on like nothing happened? Or, do you think that they might say, "Woah, we should re-allign our views to get these people back." They're not dumb. They'll change their views to pander to that 15%.

I totally understand voting for the lesser of 2 evils in swing states. I would do the same. However, NY isn't a swing state. In this state, voting for the lesser of 2 evils makes no sense.

 

[Celt]

At what point did I EVER say I supported the permit scheme ?

Putting words in my mouth and/or words in my post that were NEVER spoken or written is a weak and fickle attempt to shift the debate from where it is to where you want to go.

Where do you get to decide who is a "true" 2nd Amendment supporter and who isn't. Forced compulsion to ones thoughts and beliefs us as dangerous to liberty as censorship.

fair point, i may have taken your statement out of context regarding supporting the permitting scheme. In post #55 the member case hardened said, and you replied:

CaseHardened said: ↑
CRUZ would have been stopped by any of these three:

An Armed Teacher.

21 Year Old Purchase Age

Involuntary Incarceration

Confiscation from the Mentally Ill

President Trump supports all 4

ChuckD said:
110 percent correct .

Well said Sir .

to me, when i read that he said this shooting would have been stopped if the age was raised to 21, you agree and go on to say "well said sir", coupled with your comment about the pistol permit age and someone not being against it, that made me believe that you actually support the permitting scheme, along with raising the age to buy an ar15. i wasnt trying to put words in your mouth, i may have just read too much into it.

and its not me who decides who is a true 2a supporter, its the constitution and the supporting documents that define exactly what the 2a is, and its intent. if you are not in line with its original intent by its definition you are not a true supporter.

you cant say your a true 2a supporter..... BUUUTTTTT, i believe we should raise the age to buy certain guns so that we can make the people who are afraid of guns feel better. or that we have to accept compromise when its ALWAYS been 1 sided.

there may be certain realities that we have to accept, but that doesnt mean we have to agree or support those realities (like the pistol permitting scheme). afterall, a permit on a right is not a right, its a privilege.

@Chuck D , do you support raising the age to 21 to buy an ar15, and do you support the pistol permit scheme?

 

[@thewheels]

why should we accept any FUTHER infringements. we, as 2a supporters have never had anything extra given to us. every time there is a so called compromise its US giving up MORE of our rights.

a compromise means we get something in return. when was the last time we got something in return (that wasnt already taken from us).

He's kinda correct. Adults realize that to run a country compromise is required.

Wev'e got 2 issues though: There's very few adults in DC in "either" party.
And the current definition of compromise? All taking and absolutely nothing in return. Or, We take and you get a sack of shit in return. That's their "compromise"

 

[NirvanaFan]

NF, I'm largely in agreement with you and Darth in theory, but in effect my vote is worthless and I accept it.

I've voted Conservative Party for a long time on the state level as protest vote to the Pubs, but in a state where we're outnumbered 2:1 by Dems, you'd better get used to the idea of RARELY if ever not getting screwed on Election Day. Our state has NO mechanism for voter redress, we can't even recall legislators or have OPEN party conventions, so please forgive my fatalism.

I totally understand where you're coming from. In the end, there are only two candidates that stand a chance. I fully agree that my Libertarian vote (and I thought Johnson was a terrible candidate FWIW) is worthless. The votes for the Republican were too. I just don't understand voting for someone because they're the lesser of 2 evils when that person stands no chance at winning.

I can maybe excuse it with this past election. Voting for Trump wasn't just a big Fuck You to the Democrats, it was to the Republican establishment as well. But, a lot of the people voted for Romney because he was the lesser of 2 evils as well. I just don't see how voting 3rd party is throwing away your vote in this state.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If there was a mass vote away from the Republican candidate of say, 15%, towards a Libertarian candidate, you really think the Republicans would just continue on like nothing happened? Or, do you think that they might say, "Woah, we should re-allign our views to get these people back." They're not dumb. They'll change their views to pander to that 15%.

I totally understand voting for the lesser of 2 evils in swing states. I would do the same. However, NY isn't a swing state. In this state, voting for the lesser of 2 evils makes no sense.

I believe so in my opinion. Hell, they do it nationally. If they did care, we'd have reciprocity months ago. They will do what they will do just like Skelos did. I really think they couldn't give a shit.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Not true....I did call him the "messiah" and I still do.

As this plays out, you'll find out why.

There are TONS more issues at stake here than Fix NICS and restricting access to certain firearms to the UNDER 21 customer base.

How about corruption at the highest levels of Gov't and Law Enforcement ?

How about the economy, jobs, and infrastructure repair ?

How about ILLEGAL immigration ?

How about Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea ?

Would we be better off under Hillary ?

So....still think Trump isn't a "Messiah?"

I never used the term messiah myself. I looked at his stance on borders, capitalism, conservative principles for the supreme court compared to Hillary, 2nd amendment compared to Hillary, etc.. I just felt of the two, he was the better choice. This is far from considering him a messiah. He has done relatively well so far but I vehemently disagree with his thoughts expressed yesterday regarding gun laws.

 

[Dr. Evil]

No...that isn't what got us UnSafe.

What got is UnSafe was a politician, with national ambitions, pandering to his base, and having the Senate Majority Leader in his hip pocket. THAT'S what got us UnSafe.

Lets put blame where it belongs.

We got UnSafe from a politician with national ambitions, pandering to his base and having the Senate majority leader in his hip pocket because lousy good for nothing "gun owners" couldn't get off their ass and vote for another candidate that with everything he had against him put up a relatively respective fight. A LGS did polling of their customers weeks before the election and over 90% of the morons weren't even registered to vote.

 

[Dr. Evil]

I can't tell you how many "gun owners" I have had "discussions" with online recently since the FL shooting. They all take pride in telling me they own guns, they come from a family that has owned guns, they support the 2nd, etc.. They then proceed to say how things should be restricted, how we don't need semi automatic guns, how we need to raise the age, etc.. Like I mentioned in another thread, they always say what they think makes their words mean anything with supporting the 2nd and then use the word, "but." But? How about but, go fuck yourself. You bet your ass I judge who supports the 2nd and who doesn't based on this pathetic display of ignorance. I make no apologies about it too.

 

[NirvanaFan]

I believe so in my opinion. Hell, they do it nationally. If they did care, we'd have reciprocity months ago. They will do what they will do just like Skelos did. I really think they couldn't give a shit.

A 3rd party candidate hasn't gotten even a shred of the popular vote needed to actually change anyone's mind.

 

[Celt]

I can't tell you how many "gun owners" I have had "discussions" with online recently since the FL shooting. They all take pride in telling me they own guns, they come from a family that has owned guns, they support the 2nd, etc.. They then proceed to say how things should be restricted, how we don't need semi automatic guns, how we need to raise the age, etc.. Like I mentioned in another thread, they always say what they think makes their words mean anything with supporting the 2nd and then use the word, "but." But? How about but, go fuck yourself. You bet your ass I judge who supports the 2nd and who doesn't based on this pathetic display of ignorance. I make no apologies about it too.

countless people saying they own guns, support the 2a... BUT

i listen to breitbart news every morning on the way to work and some of the callers say the same thing.. then they go on to say, but no one should have high capacity clips... i cringe..

not to mention that apparently the shooter in FL had 10 round mags, not even 30's..

 

[Doc8404]

Messiah?
I still think he’s a twit.

But choices between a twit and a twat (well actually a C—-nt). I chose the twit.

 

[Bob]

A LGS did polling of their customers weeks before the election and over 90% of the morons weren't even registered to vote.

My father. He'll sit there and bitch about the direction of the country. He'll bitch about Cuomo. He'll bitch about criminals turned loose on the streets. He'll bitch about his taxes. He's registered to vote, but NEVER HAS.

 

[Bob]

countless people saying they own guns, support the 2a... BUT

Anybody who, during the course of a discussion with me, starts with "I support the Second Amendment, but..." gets IMMEDIATELY ripped apart. It's like saying someone is "a little pregnant." Bullshit. You either support it or you don't.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

My father. He'll sit there and bitch about the direction of the country. He'll bitch about Cuomo. He'll bitch about criminals turned loose on the streets. He'll bitch about his taxes. He's registered to vote, but NEVER HAS.

And so it goes.

 

[Chuck D]

fair point, i may have taken your statement out of context regarding supporting the permitting scheme. In post #55 the member case hardened said, and you replied:

CaseHardened said: ↑
CRUZ would have been stopped by any of these three:

An Armed Teacher.

21 Year Old Purchase Age

Involuntary Incarceration

Confiscation from the Mentally Ill

President Trump supports all 4

ChuckD said:
110 percent correct .

Well said Sir .

to me, when i read that he said this shooting would have been stopped if the age was raised to 21, you agree and go on to say "well said sir", coupled with your comment about the pistol permit age and someone not being against it, that made me believe that you actually support the permitting scheme, along with raising the age to buy an ar15. i wasnt trying to put words in your mouth, i may have just read too much into it.

and its not me who decides who is a true 2a supporter, its the constitution and the supporting documents that define exactly what the 2a is, and its intent. if you are not in line with its original intent by its definition you are not a true supporter.

you cant say your a true 2a supporter..... BUUUTTTTT, i believe we should raise the age to buy certain guns so that we can make the people who are afraid of guns feel better. or that we have to accept compromise when its ALWAYS been 1 sided.

there may be certain realities that we have to accept, but that doesnt mean we have to agree or support those realities (like the pistol permitting scheme). afterall, a permit on a right is not a right, its a privilege.

@Chuck D , do you support raising the age to 21 to buy an ar15, and do you support the pistol permit scheme?

The OP stated 4 facts that if applied to the Parkland School shooter would have possibly kept the shooter from performing his illegal act. It's VERY possible he could have obtained a firearm through illegal means which is why I say "possibly." I agree with the OP and POTUS that the 4 recommendations would have hindered the shooters progress but as well all are well aware, if someone is committed to performing an evil act, not much can actually stop them 100% of the time.

To answer your question directly, NO on age limits and NO on permit schemes.

As far as being a true 2nd Amendment "supporter", I support the ENTIRE Constitution, even the Articles I disagree with or have questions about.

There are only two absolutes in your life....being born and dropping dead. Everything else, even those aspects that were designed to NEVER be tinkered with get tinkered with. It isn't right, but it does happen and within that framework one can support the 2nd Amendment to certain degrees without penalty.

If we eliminated from our ranks everyone who isn't a strict constructionist we'd reduce our ranks by 50%. Better to educate and build consensus than tell people to piss off because they don't share the same 2nd Amendment commitment than you do.

 

[Chuck D]

We got UnSafe from a politician with national ambitions, pandering to his base and having the Senate majority leader in his hip pocket because lousy good for nothing "gun owners" couldn't get off their ass and vote for another candidate that with everything he had against him put up a relatively respective fight. A LGS did polling of their customers weeks before the election and over 90% of the morons weren't even registered to vote.

...voter apathy is alive and well.

Of that we can agree.

 

[Celt]

The OP stated 4 facts that if applied to the Parkland School shooter would have possibly kept the shooter from performing his illegal act. It's VERY possible he could have obtained a firearm through illegal means which is why I say "possibly." I agree with the OP and POTUS that the 4 recommendations would have hindered the shooters progress but as well all are well aware, if someone is committed to performing an evil act, not much can actually stop them 100% of the time.

To answer your question directly, NO on age limits and NO on permit schemes.

As far as being a true 2nd Amendment "supporter", I support the ENTIRE Constitution, even the Articles I disagree with or have questions about.

There are only two absolutes in your life....being born and dropping dead. Everything else, even those aspects that were designed to NEVER be tinkered with get tinkered with. It isn't right, but it does happen and within that framework one can support the 2nd Amendment to certain degrees without penalty.

If we eliminated from our ranks everyone who isn't a strict constructionist we'd reduce our ranks by 50%. Better to educate and build consensus than tell people to piss off because they don't share the same 2nd Amendment commitment than you do.

I appreciate you responding. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist but a realist who tries to stay hopeful most of the time. With that said, I also support the entire Constitution even when it does not benefit me. Just as I believe the left has the right to complain about the Second Amendment through their first amendment rights, although I don't think they have the right to push for legislation to infringe upon the Second Amendment, if they want to change it then they need to amend the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not a simple law.

I also get, that there will be those who support the Second Amendment in part but not in whole. At-large, I find most of them to make matters worse for us as true gun owners that believe in the Second Amendment as it was originally intended.
The media puppets them out while they sit there and say I'm a gun owner but nobody needs 30 round clips, or I'm a gun owner but I should have to go through hundreds of dollars in training before I can exercise my right, or I believe everybody has the right to own a gun but you should have to get permission from the government first.

Those types of gun owners, also known as fudd's, make things worse for us because they only empower the gun grabbers, and they help convince the anti-gunners that what they're doing is not violating our rights.

On another note, I am glad to read that you are not supportive of raising the age to buy certain rifles or the pistol permitting scheme.

 

[Celt]

The OP stated 4 facts that if applied to the Parkland School shooter would have possibly kept the shooter from performing his illegal act. It's VERY possible he could have obtained a firearm through illegal means which is why I say "possibly." I agree with the OP and POTUS that the 4 recommendations would have hindered the shooters progress but as well all are well aware, if someone is committed to performing an evil act, not much can actually stop them 100% of the time.

To answer your question directly, NO on age limits and NO on permit schemes.

As far as being a true 2nd Amendment "supporter", I support the ENTIRE Constitution, even the Articles I disagree with or have questions about.

There are only two absolutes in your life....being born and dropping dead. Everything else, even those aspects that were designed to NEVER be tinkered with get tinkered with. It isn't right, but it does happen and within that framework one can support the 2nd Amendment to certain degrees without penalty.

If we eliminated from our ranks everyone who isn't a strict constructionist we'd reduce our ranks by 50%. Better to educate and build consensus than tell people to piss off because they don't share the same 2nd Amendment commitment than you do.

I appreciate you responding. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist but a realist who tries to stay hopeful most of the time. With that said, I also support the entire Constitution even when it does not benefit me. Just as I believe the left has the right to complain about the Second Amendment through their first amendment rights, although I don't think they have the right to push for legislation to infringe upon the Second Amendment, if they want to change it then they need to amend the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not a simple law.

I also get, that there will be those who support the Second Amendment in part but not in whole. At-large, I find most of them to make matters worse for us as true gun owners that believe in the Second Amendment as it was originally intended.
The media puppets them out while they sit there and say I'm a gun owner but nobody needs 30 round clips, or I'm a gun owner but I should have to go through hundreds of dollars in training before I can exercise my right, or I believe everybody has the right to own a gun but you should have to get permission from the government first.

Those types of gun owners, also known as fudd's, make things worse for us because they only empower the gun grabbers, and they help convince the anti-gunners that what they're doing is not violating our rights.

On another note, I am glad to read that you are not supportive of raising the age to buy certain rifles or the pistol permitting scheme.

 

[Celt]

The OP stated 4 facts that if applied to the Parkland School shooter would have possibly kept the shooter from performing his illegal act. It's VERY possible he could have obtained a firearm through illegal means which is why I say "possibly." I agree with the OP and POTUS that the 4 recommendations would have hindered the shooters progress but as well all are well aware, if someone is committed to performing an evil act, not much can actually stop them 100% of the time.

To answer your question directly, NO on age limits and NO on permit schemes.

As far as being a true 2nd Amendment "supporter", I support the ENTIRE Constitution, even the Articles I disagree with or have questions about.

There are only two absolutes in your life....being born and dropping dead. Everything else, even those aspects that were designed to NEVER be tinkered with get tinkered with. It isn't right, but it does happen and within that framework one can support the 2nd Amendment to certain degrees without penalty.

If we eliminated from our ranks everyone who isn't a strict constructionist we'd reduce our ranks by 50%. Better to educate and build consensus than tell people to piss off because they don't share the same 2nd Amendment commitment than you do.

I appreciate you responding. I am neither an optimist or a pessimist but a realist who tries to stay hopeful most of the time. With that said, I also support the entire Constitution even when it does not benefit me. Just as I believe the left has the right to complain about the Second Amendment through their first amendment rights, although I don't think they have the right to push for legislation to infringe upon the Second Amendment, if they want to change it then they need to amend the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not a simple law.

I also get, that there will be those who support the Second Amendment in part but not in whole. At-large, I find most of them to make matters worse for us as true gun owners that believe in the Second Amendment as it was originally intended.
The media puppets them out while they sit there and say I'm a gun owner but nobody needs 30 round clips, or I'm a gun owner but I should have to go through hundreds of dollars in training before I can exercise my right, or I believe everybody has the right to own a gun but you should have to get permission from the government first.

Those types of gun owners, also known as fudd's, make things worse for us because they only empower the gun grabbers, and they help convince the anti-gunners that what they're doing is not violating our rights.

On another note, I am glad to read that you are not supportive of raising the age to buy certain rifles or the pistol permitting scheme.

 

[holdover]

WTF? This isn't a god dammed gun problem people. Its being framed that way! What did the government do after 911? Did they sit around and pass stronger laws against owning box cutters? Hell no! They passed the national defense authorization act which allowed them to spy on the public without a warrant. They merged intelligence assets and started homeland security. They put armed air marshals on planes. they put metal detectors in airports They militarized the police. They dropped the 82nd airborne into Afghanistan They took direct action to stop it from happening again.

New Gun laws did nothing to stop any mass shooting in the last 30 years! And they keep pushing for more after each one. WTF did they do to secure the schools? NOTHING! They did absolutely nothing. After being told 39 times that this kid in Florida was a danger what did they do? Nothing. What did they do after Columbine? Nothing! what did they do after Sandy hook? Nothing what did they do after Virginia tech? Nothing !What have they done for mental illness in the last 20 years? Nothing. what have they done for security at schools in the last 20 years Nothing.

The government has failed on multiple levels and now they are demanding that you give up your right to self defense like its your fault. Now they want to point their finger at the constitution and claim that its wrong? FUCK THAT!

 

[Celt]

WTF? This isn't a god dammed gun problem people. Its being framed that way! What did the government do after 911? Did they sit around and pass stronger laws against owning box cutters? Hell no! They passed the national defense authorization act which allowed them to spy on the public without a warrant. They merged intelligence assets and started homeland security. They put armed air marshals on planes. they put metal detectors in airports They militarized the police. They dropped the 82nd airborne into Afghanistan They took direct action to stop it from happening again.

New Gun laws did nothing to stop any mass shooting in the last 30 years! And they keep pushing for more after each one. WTF did they do to secure the schools? NOTHING! They did absolutely nothing. After being told 39 times that this kid in Florida was a danger what did they do? Nothing. What did they do after Columbine? Nothing! what did they do after Sandy hook? Nothing what did they do after Virginia tech? Nothing !What have they done for mental illness in the last 20 years? Nothing. what have they done for security at schools in the last 20 years Nothing.

The government has failed on multiple levels and now they are demanding that you give up your right to self defense like its your fault. Now they want to point their finger at the constitution and claim that its wrong? FUCK THAT!

Can I get an AMEN!


Seriously, right on bro!

 

[Chuck D]

If you follow my ramblings on this forum and others, you'll find that my hatred for Fudds is as deep and committed as my hatred for Progressives.

Unfortunately they make up a significant number of firearms owners in this country and we have to deal with that reality.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

Ignore charging him for carrying a knife on school grounds so we can give misguided youths a chance and get more federal and state funding? Check.
Ignore multiple calls to local authorities by many to go investigate Cruz due to his behavior? Check.
Ignore calls to the FBI telling them he threatened to become a school shooter? Check.
Make new laws, and gun owners agreeing to them, to raise the minimum age of law abiding citizens to own a firearm as well as who knows what else will be heading our way so we can be considered "reasonable?" Check.
Absolutely stunning? Check.

Check and mate

 

[Celt]

If you follow my ramblings on this forum and others, you'll find that my hatred for Fudds is as deep and committed as my hatred for Progressives.

Unfortunately they make up a significant number of firearms owners in this country and we have to deal with that reality.

sounds good man.

this is a passionate topic for all of us, and i know everyone on this forum is frustrated by the current situation. my wife told me ive been very moody lately, and i know its all related to this bullshit!

the real shame is that the left has made this a fight between the anti's and the 2nd amendment community (and we cant afford infighting now).

no one even knows the names of the poor kids that were killed.