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

SPM

SPM

Wobomagonda
Life Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
7,819
Location
NC
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
It was just too important for principles!

Everyone has the inalienable Right of due process before their other Rights can be morally acted against by the government.

This is the most dangerous and actually Tyrannical statement to come from the President regarding this issue, and opens the floodgates to despotism.

The chickens are coming home to roost.....

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
 
Last edited:
A position like that will turn extremely violent when they move away from cowardly mass shooters and try to take them from people who were simply reported because there neighbors don’t like them.
 
I'm not going to agree with that, but this guy should have been stopped along time a go! We can't wait until he kills a bunch of people before we can do anything to stop him. The school should be able to report to someone that he is banned from the school if he has a backpack with him! The FBI dropped the ball twice! The local police dropped the ball 20-40 times! Were any of those domestic violence? Most states that is a line that you loose gun rights at least temporarily! Now we are hearing the police were paid not to prosecute crime! Is that why they did not do anything?
 
He is equally thoughtless on all issues, his almost random utterances just happen to align with what we each want from time to time.

Some will say that he’ll abandon his principles based on public sentiment; they are wrong, he has no principles.
 
DJT true liberal colors are coming out. Does he even know what the 5th amendment is about: no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. 14th is also about the due process law.
I think due process is the only command that is mentioned twice in the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Another White House meeting with a bipartisan group of members of Congress to discuss a controversial issue.

Lots of people again losing their minds over what Trump said in that opening meeting.

Who has read The Art of the Deal?
 
lonehunter said:
I'm not going to agree with that, but this guy should have been stopped along time a go! We can't wait until he kills a bunch of people before we can do anything to stop him. The school should be able to report to someone that he is banned from the school if he has a backpack with him! The FBI dropped the ball twice! The local police dropped the ball 20-40 times! Were any of those domestic violence? Most states that is a line that you loose gun rights at least temporarily! Now we are hearing the police were paid not to prosecute crime! Is that why they did not do anything?
Click to expand...

Let me break down a few things you say.
1. Domestic as defined by North Carolina law can not happen between family members that are not living together as if married. So while the police dispatch it as a domestic it does not mean it is what we would know a qualifying "Domestic" charge that includes a 48 hour hold.

2. Hippa laws are the biggest hurdle of all these issues from disqualifying and notifications to LEOs. To me if we could fix hippa laws for qualifying events I think it would probably work up to about 70% effectiveness with proper reporting.

3. We can't wait for someone to kill. Well that's all well and good but Magistrates and judges have to weight the rights of all people. There is no way of knowing if there was ever enough from one "reported" 24-48 hour time period that would have met those standards. There has to be an immediate threat to take the person into custody, an emergency kind of event. The Magistrates in this state only do a custody order to have a person taken in front of a qualified physician. The physician then has to make a decision to whether the individual is a danger to themselves or others. Our local psych hospital has to have people do remote evaluations with qualified personnel or even has mobile crisis sometimes doing evaluations. Thus further diluting the process and I've seen several boarderline cases held for 48 revaluation and then 7 days before being turned loose. So until "We the People" decide to fund the system it would be impossible to give a real detailed evaluation of a persons mental health.

So in conclusion could this have been prevented? Very possibly can we say for any certainty with any kind of fix NO. If not bought legally we have seen people in the past steal and kill to get the weapons. It is my belief that nothing should be done immediately except a thorough bill reworking Hippa laws to be able to share more with not just law enforcement but the relevant parties of danger.
 
Rs1200xl said:
There is no "dealing" when it is OUR RIGHTS! You don't compromise on god given rights.
Click to expand...

The idea of 'dealing' is to get what you want while making the other side feel good about it.

Or we can continue with both sides telling each other to pound sand, since that has been so very successful.
 
Last edited:
The Dems in that meeting weren't giddy because Trump said he said take their guns, they are giddy because Trump straight up just advocated throwing due process out the window.

100% you will campaign adds quoting the whole due process second thing.
You do not sacrifice freedom for security, and you sure as shit should not sacrifice one freedom for another.
 
Cowboy said:
Let me break down a few things you say.
1. Domestic as defined by North Carolina law can not happen between family members that are not living together as if married. So while the police dispatch it as a domestic it does not mean it is what we would know a qualifying "Domestic" charge that includes a 48 hour hold.

2. Hippa laws are the biggest hurdle of all these issues from disqualifying and notifications to LEOs. To me if we could fix hippa laws for qualifying events I think it would probably work up to about 70% effectiveness with proper reporting.

3. We can't wait for someone to kill. Well that's all well and good but Magistrates and judges have to weight the rights of all people. There is no way of knowing if there was ever enough from one "reported" 24-48 hour time period that would have met those standards. There has to be an immediate threat to take the person into custody, an emergency kind of event. The Magistrates in this state only do a custody order to have a person taken in front of a qualified physician. The physician then has to make a decision to whether the individual is a danger to themselves or others. Our local psych hospital has to have people do remote evaluations with qualified personnel or even has mobile crisis sometimes doing evaluations. Thus further diluting the process and I've seen several boarderline cases held for 48 revaluation and then 7 days before being turned loose. So until "We the People" decide to fund the system it would be impossible to give a real detailed evaluation of a persons mental health.

So in conclusion could this have been prevented? Very possibly can we say for any certainty with any kind of fix NO. If not bought legally we have seen people in the past steal and kill to get the weapons. It is my belief that nothing should be done immediately except a thorough bill reworking Hippa laws to be able to share more with not just law enforcement but the relevant parties of danger.
Click to expand...
The thought that HIPPA precludes reporting to law enforcement is false. There are and have always been exceptions in HIPPA for law enforcement. Even a Psychiatrist has to inform LEO's when they believe the patient is a danger to the public.

Although ask a nurse or most doctors and they will tell you that patient confidentiality is absolute because they were asleep during the training and the section that dealt with that was glossed over.
 
Prudii said:
The Dems in that meeting weren't giddy because Trump said he said take their guns, they are giddy because Trump straight up just advocated throwing due process out the window.

100% you will campaign adds quoting the whole due process second thing.
You do not sacrifice freedom for security, and you sure as shit should not sacrifice one freedom for another.
Click to expand...
To be fair he didn't say there shouldn't be due process. Just that it could wait until after the threat was under control. The trump hating left just found something they could spin to piss off the right.
 
gc70 said:
Another White House meeting with a bipartisan group of members of Congress to discuss a controversial issue.

Lots of people again losing their minds over what Trump said in that opening meeting.

Who has read The Art of the Deal?
Click to expand...
+1

Rs1200xl said:
There is no "dealing" when it is OUR RIGHTS! You don't compromise on god given rights.
Click to expand...
First of all, read @gc70's post again. We have seen this on other issues following bipartisan meetings with Trump. Remember the DACA deal with no wall that Schumer said he had after meeting with Trump? How did that work out for Chucky?

Second, while the idea of "there is no dealing" sounds good, it doesn't play out so purely in practice. If you are armed, and someone tries to rob you - i.e., "Give me your wallet and I won't kill you." - you have the option to essentially say "No deal" and shoot your attacker.

But what if you are unarmed? Well, if you are an unyielding-about-your-rights purist, you declare that your wallet is the molehill that you will die upon. If you are more strategic, you realize this battle is not the war, and you live to fight another day when you are better prepared.
 
Trump is a big government socialist. Just like Cruz, just like Rubio, just like Hillary. Anyone who supported Trump thinking he would reign in the State is a fool. Things are not going to get batter, it's just that simple. Especially when we have organizations like the NRA watching our backs.
 
gc70 said:
The idea of 'dealing' is to get what you want while making the other side feel good about it.

Or we can continue with both sides telling each other to pound sand, since that has been so very successful.
Click to expand...


Maybe I missed everything....what advances for gun rights on the table? Are suppressors coming off the NFA list? No? How about national ccw? Nah that was told to be shelved too....

So to me, all that is going to happen is "acceptable" infringement on our 2A rights. It seems as long as Trump is pulling our rights it's okay.
 
drypowder said:
Second, while the idea of "there is no dealing" sounds good, it doesn't play out so purely in practice. If you are armed, and someone tries to rob you - i.e., "Give me your wallet and I won't kill you." - you have the option to essentially say "No deal" and shoot your attacker.

But what if you are unarmed? Well, if you are an unyielding-about-your-rights purist, you declare that your wallet is the molehill that you will die upon. If you are more strategic, you realize this battle is not the war, and you live to fight another day when you are better prepared.
Click to expand...

Republicans, who claim to be strong 2A supporters, hold both chambers of the house, the presidency and a large number of state governors. To your analogy on being robbed...that is equal to being robbed infront of a police station with a bodyguard and a ccw on your person. But to appease the robber you'll pull out your wallet and hand him $20 to leave you alone.

Again, there are ZERO rights being gained on the table and only more infringements. Look I'm pissed at myself for voting for this guy too, but I'm not going to stand here defending his ideas for government overreach.
 
If only we had been warned that Trump would sell us down the river...what's that? People did try to warn us? We must have been screaming MAGA too loudly and calling them cucks and globalists for no reason.
 
Rs1200xl said:
Republicans, who claim to be strong 2A supporters, hold both chambers of the house, the presidency and a large number of state governors. To your analogy on being robbed...that is equal to being robbed infront of a police station with a bodyguard and a ccw on your person. But to appease the robber you'll pull out your wallet and hand him $20 to leave you alone.

Again, there are ZERO rights being gained on the table and only more infringements. Look I'm pissed at myself for voting for this guy too, but I'm not going to stand here defending his ideas for government overreach.
Click to expand...


Come on.....they are just having a civil "conversation" about sensible gun law reform. "Conversation" is libtard speak for he we come after your rights.
 
Last month the "blue wave" of 2018 stalled and even turned into a tiny Republican advantage. This is how you screw it all up-
 
drypowder said:
+1

First of all, read @gc70's post again. We have seen this on other issues following bipartisan meetings with Trump. Remember the DACA deal with no wall that Schumer said he had after meeting with Trump? How did that work out for Chucky?

Second, while the idea of "there is no dealing" sounds good, it doesn't play out so purely in practice. If you are armed, and someone tries to rob you - i.e., "Give me your wallet and I won't kill you." - you have the option to essentially say "No deal" and shoot your attacker.

But what if you are unarmed? Well, if you are an unyielding-about-your-rights purist, you declare that your wallet is the molehill that you will die upon. If you are more strategic, you realize this battle is not the war, and you live to fight another day when you are better prepared.
Click to expand...

I was all up in arms with the DACA capitulation thing...BUT, there has been no capitulation. Trump is sticking to his guns on the wall and border security. Now, if he signs any executive orders concerning gun control of ANY kind, he may lose me. The whole process may lose me. It's getting quite tiring to keep up.
 
One of my friends is a big fan of the "Oh Trump is just playing 3D / 4D chess... he's trying to make a few democrat friends to take the heat off going into 2018 then give them all the middle finger again afterwards."
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
SPST said:
I don't like the man at all. He's a total sleezebag. Having said that, I'd vote for him again if my only other choice was Hildebeast.
Click to expand...
28467824_1605152736272672_6972627049461596473_n.jpg
 
If we made a mistake it was in the primary, in the general election the choice was clear to me. I do think that at some point we’re going to need to give enough votes to a third party that they get full participation and matching funds in the next election cycle.
 
Also remember Trump doesn't speak for the executive; Scavino is already in walk back mode.

Just try to picture him as the Governor in "Blazing Saddles" bouncing up and down with his face in titties signing bills complaining "work work work."

(found it)



If this isn't Trump I don't know what is. Watch the whole thing... innocent women and children... phony bologna jobs... etc. It's just perfect-
 
Last edited:
JimB said:
If we made a mistake it was in the primary, in the general election the choice was clear to me. I do think that at some point we’re going to need to give enough votes to a third party that they get full participation and matching funds in the next election cycle.
Click to expand...

No, no.....we know. It's always the next cycle.

And that's how the establishment controls the electorate. Each election is more critical than the last to worry about anything but the letter that follows a candidate's name.

Yes he's for all these things that the opposition party is for and our party says we're against, but if you don't vote for our candidate that's for these positions that are the opposite of your principles and convictions, you're really going to get their candidate that's for these positions that are the opposite of your principles and convictions. And that would be way worse than our guy that doesn't actually represent you.

It's the same on dance every cycle - the ol' Washington Two-Step, and no matter how many times they take home someone else at the end of night, everyone still lines up like the battered wife thinking if they love him harder this time it'll all be rainbows and unicorns.

"At some point" is the point where it becomes impossible to "change it from the inside" in any meaningful and peaceful way.
 
We didn't make a mistake. It was Trump or Hillary - choose the lesser evil. Nobody else in the republican clown car had a shot-in-hell at beating her. You can pontificate all you want but I'm positive we were F!@#ed from day one. So do you choose to burn your ballot or hold your nose and pick the lesser evil? I don't condemn you either way.
 
Last edited:
Catfish said:
You can pontificate all you want but I'm positive we were F!@#ed from day one. So do you choose to burn your ballot or hold your nose and pick the lesser evil? I don't condemn you either way.
Click to expand...

John-Quincy-Adams-Quotes-3.jpg


So in a choice between Shit Soup and a Shit Sandwich, the person that elected to eat a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich burned his ballot?

You're analogy is if you're going to get raped anyways, it's best to choose the rapist that says he loves you instead of the one who insults you while going balls deep?

How about not consenting to being raped?
 
Rs1200xl said:
Republicans, who claim to be strong 2A supporters, hold both chambers of the house, the presidency and a large number of state governors. To your analogy on being robbed...that is equal to being robbed infront of a police station with a bodyguard and a ccw on your person. But to appease the robber you'll pull out your wallet and hand him $20 to leave you alone.
Click to expand...
Your analogy doesn't work - at some point, the Dems will have control of the White, Senate and House. Also, even now, the Republican party, which has a slim margin in the Senate, is quite fractured; pretending they are all on the same page on anything is delusional.

Our country is sick and we will continue to churn out these psychopaths. How many more of these shootings do you think the general public will accept before they demand the government "do something"? Do you want this to happen when the Dems are in full control?

Rs1200xl said:
Again, there are ZERO rights being gained on the table and only more infringements.
Click to expand...
Back when the bump stocks came under fire after the Las Vegas massacre, I said I'd be willing to trade bump stocks for national reciprocity (no federal licensing, just law requiring states to honor other states CCW) and many were opposed to even that. Again, "not one inch" is great when that position is tenable. When it's not, a different game plan is needed - or we can keep spouting lofty rhetoric while ignoring the reality that is coming. So I'll ask again - how many more kids being slaughtered by psychopaths do you think the general public (whipped up by leftist media) will tolerate?
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
John-Quincy-Adams-Quotes-3.jpg


So in a choice between Shit Soup and a Shit Sandwich, the person that elected to eat a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich burned his ballot?

You're analogy is if you're going to get raped anyways, it's best to choose the rapist that says he loves you instead of the one who insults you while going balls deep?

How about not consenting to being raped?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you voted for a candidate that made you feel good but had zero chance of winning you effectively burned your ballot. Have at it tho, that's your right. I won't make any stupid rape jokes about your choice.

Mr. Adams had the great fortune to live in a time when politics and principles were in alignment. We do not.
 
Last edited:
I personally voted for Trump because the political establishment hated him. He wasn't a career politician. I saw him as a big middle finger to the DC elite that said we're tired of your shenanigans. At the time, I was worried that he might bend on the principles he was elected on if enough pressure was applied. Up until 2016, I'd voted for 3rd party candidates exclusively. Gary Johnson was soft on guns rights, and Trump appeared to be a strong supporter of the 2A at the time. And I knew Trump could beat Hillary.

Seeing the recent news, It appears that fear has come true. Up until now, I've been mostly pleased with what he's done as a president. More than I've been pleased with any other sitting president in my lifetime.

I'm willing to wait cautiously for a bit, and see just what he's up to. But I feel like he's going to pull a Reagan, and do some leftist crap to gain a little favor across the aisle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom