President Trump to address gun violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
We’ll know more in 10 minutes. I figure worst case would be he is overly confident with the far left Dem field and does something that winds up alienating his base thinking it will help him in the middle. He would cram it together with some watered down version of other promises and call it a “compromise”.
 
We’ll know more in 10 minutes. I figure worst case would be he is overly confident with the far left Dem field and does something that winds up alienating his base thinking it will help him in the middle. He would cram it together with some watered down version of other promises and call it a “compromise”.

I think he is fixing to totally alienate his base but what difference does it make. The deed will be done whether he wins re-election or not. We won’t be getting any rights back if anything goes through. You all know this.
 
Trump is one smart savvy deal maker. He will not pander to the Dems nor when he hurt his base. Some do not like his style, many do. The point is, he has a big habit of winning. He knows how to win. And he knows how to play the game with the Dems. Why do you think they hate him so much? He is a strong leader and they hate strong leaders.
 
Well, while reading this, Trump just called for red flag laws, and the death penelty......
 
In today's "Newspaper" it is of course all Trumps fault as he has divided the Country and it's all racially motivated (his fault)

So tired of all the crap

They even go on to say the same old crap of Universal Background checks. What would that have solved in these cases???
 
Trump spoke. He wants health care reform.
He also wants "red flag laws," which, depending on how they're worded, and if they protect due process, may not be horribly onerous. But the "devil is in the details," as they say, and I've heard some very bad things regarding them.

In concept, I think there ought to be some kind of mechanism for temporarily addressing a situation in which many people around a person know something is seriously wrong. After about 95% of these mass killings, there is lots of evidence that people "knew" the person was in crisis or violent or a nut.

The challenge is how you prevent a neighbor who doesn't like your barking dog (or who doesn't like your complaints about his barking dog) to basically SWAT you. Given the anti-gun biases of some judges, the level of scrutiny given to some complaints will be basically zero - if the judge thinks nobody should have guns, then any excuse to get rid of some guns in private hands is OK.

This is stuff that can be addressed somewhat in drafting, though it will never be perfect. Any time you create a legal/human-process mechanism, there will be times when the mechanism doesn't function perfectly.
 
They even go on to say the same old crap of Universal Background checks. What would that have solved in these cases???

It's amazing how I often I read stories that explicitly concede that it would have had no impact in the vast majority of shooting cases - and then they say "but we still have done nothing." As if doing something unproductive is better than doing nothing.
 
Wall Mart could have simply taken the Democrat advice and Placed a "No Gun Zone" sign at each entry and this would have never happened. My gosh these are some very smart folks with a lot of brilliant ideas.
My Democrat Gov. is out there now advocating for more No gun Zone's. See how simple things are. "Can't we all just get along"?
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how I often I read stories that explicitly concede that it would have had no impact in the vast majority of shooting cases - and then they say "but we still have done nothing." As if doing something unproductive is better than doing nothing.

It doesn't make any sense. Pass UBC and stuff like this will still happen so we'll need more laws. Pass magazine capacity restrictions and stuff like this will still happen. Ban Assault rifles and stuff like this will still happen. 2/3rds of often quoted 30,000 gun deaths per are suicides. You'll have to ban everything up to and including single shot pistols to make any impact on that number. Passing more gun laws isn't going to stop gang violence.

But, but, but we need to do something....! There are a lot of people out there with no interest in guns so making it harder to own guns, banning magazines, banning features on guns will make no difference to them at all. Passing ineffective laws will allow them to feel better for at least a couple of minutes...
 
There are a lot of people out there with no interest in guns so making it harder to own guns, banning magazines, banning features on guns will make no difference to them at all.

Taking rights that you aren't using seriously is hard. It's easy to be OK with restrictions on free speech such a flag burning if you cannot imagine yourself ever burning an American flag. It's easy to think racial profiling at the airport is OK if you don't look middle-eastern and wouldn't be subject to repeated searches for nothing that you can control. And it's easy to take away gun rights if you don't own guns or want to own guns yourself.

This is one of the big failings in our society right now. We are losing these bedrock civics-lessons commitments to respecting that you have to put yourself in others' shoes when you are considering whether to restrict rights.
 
Incrementalism: Pass restrictive laws that you know won't solve the problem in question so that you can pass more laws... .

Anytime there is a right that is hated by a large number of people (right to abortion, right to say hateful/offensive things, right to own guns), incrementalism is guaranteed. Every possible reduction of the right is seen as a good - but insufficient.
 
Magazines/feeds limited to 5 rounds maximum in ALL FIREARMS. All other magazine will become illegal to own or possess. No grandfathering.

This is my guess. It allows owners to keep there firearms, for now.
Even the most rabid antis (such as Virginia Gov. Northam) are calling for a 10-round limit. That would carve out classic guns such as Garands and 1911's. Most modern pistols, that normally come with 15- to 18-round standard magazines, have 10-round factory magazines available. But M1 carbines and AR-15's would definitely be affected.

What happens to the millions of existing over-10-round magazines? We would have a huge contraband problem, because these would not be turned in.

Cloth belts for MG's would be felonies. It's not clear how disintegrating links would be affected.
 
Anytime there is a right that is hated by a large number of people (right to abortion, right to say hateful/offensive things, right to own guns), incrementalism is guaranteed. Every possible reduction of the right is seen as a good - but insufficient.

Respectfully, there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Either way, I don’t see anyone hindering women from doing these things despitenthr fact that I could argue that there are far more babies killed legally than there are people taken out with guns. What I see is an erosion of moral standards across the board all while trying to censor/erase anything that is of the conservative mindset.
 
Silent', you are illustrating my point. I'm not arguing about whether there should be a right to abortion, just that a lot of people don't think there should be, and are therefore always trying to chip away at that right.

A lot of people also don't think there should be a right to guns. Just like the anti-abortion folks, they have their arguments about why the constitution doesn't include an individual right to guns - but their views wouldn't change based on the constitutional language, just like anti-abortion folks wouldn't like abortion if the constitution addressed it directly and specifically.

Same dynamic, different topic.
 
Magazine limits are as lame as Gun Free Zones. It takes what 2 seconds to drop a 10 round mag and insert another??

Why is 10 rounds a magic number? Is it like Minimum Wage?. Why not 5 rounds, or single shot? I have a 8 round revolver, is that to many??
 
This statement, I am sure will not be sufficient god some in power but it shows that Trump is looking at the acts versus the the guns

FROM THE ARTICLE:
“Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun," Trump said, going on to call for red-flag laws to allow the seizure of firearms from those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety.

This is from this article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-shootings-remarks.amp

The statement below sends chills up my back.

FROM THE ARTICLE:
"We must do a better job at identifying and acting on early warning signs," Trump said. "I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies and social media companies to develop tools to identify mass shooters before they strike."

Imagine you are here on The High Road or another pro gun or shooting forum and you receive an updated “Users Agreement”, or whatever it may be called, telling you that everything you say may be monitored by the government. Or worse, you get into an argument with someone online or have a disagreement only to find your actions have gotten the attention of a Federal or local law enforcement or justice bureaucrat.

It doesn’t take many of the wrong words to make someone look like a threat...

Of course there was backlash to Trump’s speech. What he said didn’t follow “the agenda”.
 
Has anyone ever stopped to think what would happen if the Dems got their way and to the point that all firearms were banned and no honest law abiding citizens would have any way to protect their families themselves? How many jobs would be lost. How game would over multiply to the point of disease etc. And do the Democrats really believe the criminals would not benefit in a huge way? Do they not understand that taking away any part of the US Constitution would mean the start of stripping away more of it? And what that would lead to?
My Democrat Gov. wants more NO GUN ZONES and he voiced this right after the Virginia Beach shooting. What would he say to the family of one of the victims that the night before thought about brining in a CCW weapon because she felt a danger. What would he say to her?
 
The most important aspect of this is whatever gun control bills are proposed we all need to hammer on them hard and bombard our reps with emails/letters/calls (whatever you prefer). We've done a really good job of defeating additional gun control bills that they hurl at us one after the other, whatever comes in the near future will have to be dealt with the same way. Even more so by individuals with the chaos going on in the NRA (maybe that chaos won't affect their ILA branch at the moment).
 
Imagine you are here on The High Road or another pro gun or shooting forum and you receive an updated “Users Agreement”, or whatever it may be called, telling you that everything you say may be monitored by the government.
News flash.

The government has been monitoring internet, email, cellphone, social media, texting traffic etc. for a long time, certainly after 9/11 attack.

Can't confirm this but when I worked in IT as support project manager for a pilot program, I got the feeling and notion that many companies, like Microsoft, are required to monitor and forward to DHS any red flags they detect to ensure the safety and security of USA.

Don't worry, if you are typical gun enthusiast and post on THR, you are likely "grouped" with other pro-gun/2A patriots than those posting on social media that they are going to kill people with repeated hateful rant which will immediately trigger a red flag.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top