Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 223
- Views 12,532
doose
Happy to be here
so which of your rights are you willing to "cut a deal" with?
doose
Happy to be here
so... we will give you your day in court when we damned well feel like it... until then, we intend to run over your ass repeatedly.
No, I voted for a candidate I supported such that my conscience is clear for when our nation finds itself in another more dynamic point in its history.
It's important for having the moral standing for the active defense of one's Life, Liberty and Property, and provides the legitimacy to present the Causes and Necessities that a People may point to when making the bold claims of Free Men.
Last edited:
CCW007
Well-Known Member
And to think I was told I did not know what I was saying when I said Trump was not a true progun candidate. I think he is a scumbag and have never been a fan, but this is what you get when you put Billery on the ballot.
When it came to the primary, I voted for Ted Cruz. Even though I had a lot of hesitation over his overt religiousness I still felt he was the best of the choices for a strict constitutionalist. When it came to the general election, I chose Trump because I did NOT want Clint0n to win. I've said before that the problem with the electoral system lies in the types of candidates it churns out and that if there is ever going to be an option to fix it through the electoral process it will require the right candidates. I've come to the conclusion that this is a mutually exclusive solution set - in other words likely an impossibility. This doesn't leave a lot of options and the ones there are, aren't good.
I also see a lot of what the leftists want in terms of gun restriction to be crossing a proverbial line. If they were to get one of their freaking 'bans" through it may hamper my ability to walk into a store and get something I presently have or that I want, but I sure as hell would not comply with any such restrictions regarding stuff I have either. As I've also said in regards to other but similar situations, I would not submit to the legal system if it were to become an issue. Quite honestly, other "laws" like duty to inform would just as quickly go out the window for obvious reasons.
I also see a lot of what the leftists want in terms of gun restriction to be crossing a proverbial line. If they were to get one of their freaking 'bans" through it may hamper my ability to walk into a store and get something I presently have or that I want, but I sure as hell would not comply with any such restrictions regarding stuff I have either. As I've also said in regards to other but similar situations, I would not submit to the legal system if it were to become an issue. Quite honestly, other "laws" like duty to inform would just as quickly go out the window for obvious reasons.
Last edited:
Because at some point Dems will be in control, we have to give up our rights to republicans? Is that what you are saying? Really?!
And as always pointed out, once bumpstocks are banned it will open the door for other modifications to be removed. Hell I could see magwells making that list as "IT MAKES RELOADING FIREARMS FAR TO QUICK AND EASY!"
I suppose as long as republicans and slowly whittle away at our rights it is perfectly fine...just like 1986.
I have taken to personally educating folks. I am levelheaded and provide facts to which I have seen people slowly opening their eyes to the misinformation of the media. Hell I have gotten a several ultra liberal folks to actually start reassessing their views on guns and gun control after pointing out the false information they have been gobbling up. Are they running out to get an AR-15 today? Not likely but at least the seed has been planted.
As the media has pushed itself so far to the left extreme they have published blatant lies which are easily countered. Once folks are actually awakened to this false information they begin to question(slowly) everything they have been fed.
Last edited:
drypowder
Les Deplorables
I see you are not interested in a serious conversation. Carry on with your deliberate misinterpretations.
All good, and I commend you.
Since you asked, I am not willing to give up any god-given rights. But I am also not naive or uninformed enough to think that every single thing being tossed around in this discussion is a god-given right.
Look at the proposal to change the age to buy a rifle (from a FFL) to 21. Heads are exploding NOW over the idea of changing something that was arbitrary when it was done 50 years (and without noticeable objections in the last half century). "Shall not be infringed" and "god-given rights" are being trotted out over something that is mundane and has been accepted by societies throughout history. That's right, societies differentiate between children and adults and apply different rules to the two groups. And the age marking the line between child and adult is always arbitrary, so pick a number. Yes, I would be willing to discuss, debate, "deal" or negotiate about what that age should be because that is a minor choice routinely made by society - and it is certainly not a "god-given right" that was handed down from on high by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
We are not going to change the minds of the gun control freaks, nor are they going to change our minds. But there are huge numbers of people -largely uninformed- whose position on guns is not set in stone. We can persuade the undecided, but we need to take time to listen to their concerns and answer them thoughtfully rather than being stubborn and inflexible.
molonlabe
Member
You do realize most on this forum don't want actual discussion...don't you.
Last edited:
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
If Obama had said this you would have a three page thread on it in 10 minutes and rightfully so. I don’t disagree with you that “not one inch” is a counterproductive argument but the idea you put forth of “well if we do it versus them when they’re in control” seems to be counter to many things you’ve said (which i also agree with) in the past about the left’s tactics of slowly eroding rights. If, for instance, the republicans pass a bill tomorrow capitulating every single thing the left wants, they will simply move the goal posts and attempt to ban all of the exempt list once they are in power. This shooting was one of the most preventable ones to date and therefore should be a poor catalyst for this movement. If there was ever one of these to dig in and stand our ground it’s this one. 45 visits, 2 FBI tips, and exposure of the promise program mean this should fall flat if “we” were on message. Instead we get trump gifting the dems a sound bite of “you’re afraid of the NRA” To Toomey of all people. This was a huge F up on trumps part no matter how you slice it.
Last edited:
My EX-son-in-law's father got into a domestic with his wife (my grandsons other grandparents). Sheriff was called, they calmed things down, and they removed all guns in the house. Given how volatile he can become when drunk, but he had nothing that warranted an arrest to that point, this was just a common sense move on the part of the sheriff, and may well have saved one of their lives.
Fast forward, they are now divorced, and he has his guns back.
Fast forward, they are now divorced, and he has his guns back.
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
So they removed his guns without a conviction? You’re okay with them violating someone’s rights just because they were hot headed?
i think thats where we are losing the fight, gun rights orgs and supporters send/receive stats, anecdotes, defensive gun use stories etc etc - ALL of which is essentially preaching to the choir.
Meanwhile, the urbanization of america continues with city dwellers growing up with absolutely no experience or knowledge of firearms, the mass spread of misinformation whether deliberate or unintentional from the media and facebook, and sound bites on nearly every news channel swaying popular opinion (since a large majority of the population cant be bothered with details and like one liners like "common sense" reform or "strengthen gun laws" which would otherwise sound reasonable on the surface)
Why are we not pushing for aired public debates, (like grnc did some time back), sponsored documetaries or mailed literature or cold calls or ANYTHING else that can be thought of to combat the constant flood of antigun sentiment being spread these days?
I think most people really have no idea of complexity of the issues, existing gun laws, etc - hell half of us on here cant agree and we should all be experts. I think reaching those is where the war will be won . we seem to be losing on the public relations front.
ive personally witnessed some abuse in that arena due to forsyth countys "tough stance" on domestic violence and its frustrating. one person is automatically locked up for 48 hours (so they can "cool down") while known felons are ignored and wind up actually committing violence and somehow wind up with community service.
we have some f*ed up laws around here.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
That entirely depends on how you measure success. Up until this point, liberty has been restored in great leaps and bounds where guns apply. Several states over road the gun free zone act and don't have these issues.
Success during a tragedy at this point is both sides telling each other to go pound sand and nothing happening. Then, after the dust settles, more states using their heads and repealing gun free zones.
Agreed. The "left's" response to this tragedy has been their demanding people who had nothing to do with it being forced to pay a penance. They should go pound sand.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Couple of sincere questions here. First, you say we won't change their minds and then say we should listen to their concerns and answer them thoughtfully rather than being firm and inflexible. So my question is why? Why would I take the time to speak thoughtfully to someone who's mind will not change and is firm and inflexible in their delusional thoughts? I'd rather remain a rock against their hard place and then have zero movement to either side.
While I agree that societies throughout time have differentiated between children and men the very idea that that differentiation needed to be carved into law by the government of the local society is a pretty new phenomenon when taking in history as a whole. For thousands of years that line was drawn by the parents. Granted tribes and religions had ceremonies to welcome a boy into manhood, but that ceremony was delayed if they weren't ready.
Now, even if I were to agree with the idea that the government should have the right to pass such a law, which I don't, then it needs to be the same for all of adulthood. As it stands right now an 18 year old can serve and die in the military, can sign a legal document putting themselves into debt, take their clothes off for money, drive a car (which kills far more people than guns), caste a ballot that will change the course of their country but they cannot buy a beer or, if this POS legislation goes through, buy a gun.
You say god given right. By that I assume you mean the right to life, and by virtue of that right, the right to protect that life. But then you follow that up by saying that the government deciding that you have to be 21 to buy a gun isn't trampling that god given right. My question to you is at what age are you allowed to have a god given right? At what age are you allowed the right to life?
drypowder
Les Deplorables
1. Obama is a Marxist, so getting to a total civilian ban + confiscation is his long-term goal, as it always has been and will be for Marxists.
2. I don't think Trump has strong feelings either way. I also think he is well aware of the clout of the NRA and people who will vote on gun rights. So I'm not going to get too worked up until we see something more concrete coming from Trump. He's been great so far (considering the political constraints he is under - slim majority with lots of RINOs, many of whom are never-Trumpers), and I don't see him committing political suicide in an election year. Nothing very restrictive is going to get through the GOP-controlled House, which is also keenly aware that many 2A proponents are (or are very close to) single issue voters.
3. An increasing number of states have instituted an AWB - and unlike the '94 federal ban, these are all permanent. To put our heads in the sand and just repeat "not one inch" ignores the reality that is coming.
4. For a variety of reasons, I expect these mass shootings will continue, if not increase. If we do nothing to curtail these (and I am all for eliminating gun-free zones, but we'll have to see if there are enough RINOs willing to go along with this; the Dems will certainly be against it without some concessions), we are going to hand the next all-Democrat federal government a ticket to a federal AWB, mag limits and (worst of all) so-called universal background checks which are a backdoor registry. Screaming "not one inch" won't matter one bit when the left controls government. These mass shootings are pure gold for the left because of the reliably strong emotional reaction the general public has. It behooves us to figure out a way (that is politically feasible) to reduce this phenomenon. I've made the case to people in the middle on guns that these mass shootings are insignificant, and are a price of freedom, but this is a very hard sell - try it out and see for yourself.
Last edited:
drypowder
Les Deplorables
And the blue states are passing ever more restrictive gun control (AWB, mag limits, universal background checks/backdoor registry) after these tragedies, so this cuts both ways.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
True, but such is the nature of living in a confederacy of states. The people in those states now have the option of taking it up the ass or filing suit. And if that doesn't work they can use the ballot box, the moving box or the ammo box.
I cannot concern myself with what the elected officials in someone else's states are doing at the moment. We should all focus on our own state's legislature.
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
@drypowder , don’t disagree with any of that with the exception that trump has been on board with a fed AWB for some time. I believe there is a 2000 quote of his along with additional wait times. I’m not saying we scream “not one inch” but how you don’t think this was a huge stumble for the sound bites alone and the fact that this particular shooting should be pinned on the sheriff’s inaction above all else is beyond me. When Dianne can barley contain her glee you’re doing it wrong. As for the house, I have no faith in the rhinos to prevent anything. You and I don’t necessarily disagree but saying Trump didn’t screw up “bigly” on this one is delusional. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
doose
Happy to be here
you are absolutely correct in that, with respect to the age question, the line of demarcation that defines the difference between child and adult is obscure. in that regard, we as a society tend to get the cart before the horse. one of the first things we should do is define the age of adulthood. Jewish culture defines it as 13. they hold celebrations to welcome males into adulthood.
so as a nation, lets define when one is entitled to be called an adult. if it is 18... fine.. 21? fine... hell, I dont care if it is 25 as long as it is uniformly applied... that being said, let the chips fall where the adulthood line is drawn... you want to vote> you must be an adult... drink? adult... serve in the army? adult... buy a gun? adult... I have no problem with that, but as of now, we tend to define things as it suits our agenda.
Slappy McTrigger
My Own Safe Space
For all the preening and pressure this is still an example of the vocal minority. Trump’s need to be liked gets him into trouble. I am not seeing the left praise him and doing a 180 on their hatred of the guy no matter what he does. He was on the right track with school security and removal of gun free zones. If they do a ban then WHEN a school shooting happens post ban the door will be left wide open for “we didn’t go far enough!”
doose
Happy to be here
^brilliantly spoken^
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Can't, which is to say, No, I won't.
Concerning liberty, I am a hard ass and I refuse to budge...any.
Read it again; we will not sway the gun control freaks, but we can influence the undecided masses.
You make a philosophical argument for removing all age limits from buying guns. The same type of argument could be made about people with violent histories being prohibited from having guns; even violent people should be able to protect their life. Society, in our collective wisdom, allows violent people to protect their lives, just not with modern firearms. Society also allows younger people to protect their lives, even with guns, although they are not allowed to purchase guns on their own at retail.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
To your first point I read it a couple of time before responding and if that’s what you meant I agree but I didn’t read it that way.
To your second point I am a staunch advocate for the 2nd as it was written. The founding fathers did not say “unless you are a convicted felon” or any other such caveat.
The reason they didn’t is that they understood the power of government and they feared it. They knew that if you placed a caveat on a right it became a privilege and a privilege can be taken away through corruption.
Do I want violent criminals to have guns? No I don’t. I don’t want them to have knives either. But the fact is they have both and will continue to have both no matter what unconstitutional law gets passed.
So as it stands now, what we have done is allowed people who, for the most part a law abiding but became non violent felons to have the right usurped.
And to the point of whether I believe a violent person has the right to protect their life I do. That is what a god given right is. If they are violent enough then they shouldn’t be out on the streets. We, as a society, have the ability to administer punishment up to death to remove people who are violent and have no sanctity for the lives of others. But we should not have the authority to remove their god given rights if we choose to let them rejoin our society.
The same goes for the mentally disturbed. At any point in time they could make political dissonance a mental disease and then you don’t get to have a gun. Or prepping or anything else.
It’s happened in every country without a RTKABA.
Making the law say that you have to be 21 to drink has done nothing for underage drinking. Why would we feel that a law saying that you have to be 21 to buy a gun would change their access to those?
Last edited:
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
A bunch of us should probably get together over beer soon, somewhere around Greene's old stomping grounds.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Here’s my bottom line.
Reasonable gun control measures only remain so if you believe that goverment is altruistic and acts reasonably.
Once you understand how unreasonable most government is (and you study even the most rudimentary history) you begin to fear letting the camels nose under the tent, even if the camel promises you this is as far as it will go.
Reasonable gun control measures only remain so if you believe that goverment is altruistic and acts reasonably.
Once you understand how unreasonable most government is (and you study even the most rudimentary history) you begin to fear letting the camels nose under the tent, even if the camel promises you this is as far as it will go.
maven
10MM is best MM
Just the tip, eh?
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I’m a pretty straight forward and honest man. But even I lied every time I promised that.
Let me get this straight ... you think that screaming "shall not be infringed" or other absolutist slogans at some undecided person is more persuasive than listening to their thoughts and patiently explaining why they should support our position.
