President Trumps Gun Talk Today

[H20fwler]

I watched the Presidents televised meeting today and afterwards wasn’t quite sure what I had heard with all the suggestions being floated.

The bump stock thing is a no brainer, go ahead and ban them.

I totally support his stance on making the background checks more thorough and adding all the mental illness verbiage.

Making schools more secure with some type of armed protection, one way doors, metal detectors or whatever is needed to make them a hard target I’m for.

Coming up with a system to red flag potentially dangerous kids I’m all for.

Fixing the law enforcement call in tip lines I’m all for.

Being able to seize guns from someone’s house that has been to a psychiatrist for any reason with or without a warrant or any type of gun confiscation before any court hearing. No way.


Raising the age to 21 to purchase an AR... I don’t really like that one but if that’s what’s needed OK.

Raising age to 21 to purchase or have in possession a long gun.....no way. What about kids that hunt or target shoot?

Banning AR’s all together no way. What’s next all semi auto’s?

Limiting clip or magazine size. No way.

President Trump kept saying he wants new hard laws and he will support it. Half of the things discussed totally crap on the 2nd amendment and are flirting with a police state.
If Trump betrays the 2nd amendment I’m done with him, that will tear it for me I don’t care how good my 401K is doing or how he fixes immigration health care and taxes.

 

[buckvelvet]

I actually trust what Trump is doing and i’m as big a gun owner as anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smallplot]

I actually trust what Trump is doing and i’m as big a gun owner as anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t trust any politician as far as I can throw them. You say your as big a gun owner as anyone, but people fought and died for our rights beginning with the revolutionary war and continuing to this day for what? So that a portion of the populous can feel warm and fuzzy? No they fought so that as Americans we have rights that can’t be taken away by government at least without hearings and due process.

Taking someone’s property, their firearms, upon who’s determination? Maybe a Dr will think you are depressed because your dog died. Can a dr then get law enforcement to walk in and take your firearms because something may happen? The constitution is being circumvented and with that, yes I have a problem. Just like when the TSA was placing people on a no fly list, many times without their knowledge, and wanting that as a consideration for not passing a background check to purchase firearms without due process.

In wanting to be better stewards of the land, in my opinion it goes farther than wildlife. I know you have your right to express an opinion and hope I have neither inflamed nor demeaned your opinion by sharing mine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

The more I hear on this gun debate, the more I see folks who don't understand the second amendment. It is amazing how many folks make the argument, who needs an AR for hunting or a 30 round magazine to defend your home. If you look at the second amendment and its historical context, it is about protecting states from having their rights infringed by the federal government they were creating for a common defense. The purpose of having guns ubiquitous is to deter the federal government from usurping powers not granted to it by the constitution.

The very liberals who fear Trump and call him fascist are protected by the ubiquity of firearms. Not just some subset of firearms used for hunting or home defense but all firearms. It would be very hard for any leader to drum up enough support from the military to form a dictatorship with the threat of such a bloody insurrection. The ubiquity of firearms is much like nuclear weapons. No sane country develops nuclear weapons with an intent to use them. They act as a deterrent against attack. Likewise, we don't own firearms because we every plan to rise up against the federal government, it is the very ubiquity of all firearms that deters leaders from going rogue and assuming extra-constitutional power.

To my way of thinking, it is not the federal government who should regulate firearms, but the individual states. If the citizens of a state choose to elect officials that want to regulate firearms in their state in a certain way that is fine. If I don't like it, I can vote them out of office or simply move to another state. I see much less threat from each individual state regulating firearms as they see fit.

Does the constitution go further than that? Maybe, Justice Scalia says it extends to a personal right but explicitly allows for regulation. Whether that interpretation holds for the long-run or not, only time will tell.

Just my opinion...

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill]

I think Trump is doing what he does best. Playing them. Bump stocks may go. Maybe a three day wait.

After that hey he listened to their whining but that's it.

He's lining the courts in our favor. That's not a little thing.

 

[buckvelvet]

@Smallplot im not a snowflake man, your opinions are valid and wont make me cry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smallplot]

The more I hear on this gun debate, the more I see folks who don't understand the second amendment. It is amazing how many folks make the argument, who needs an AR for hunting or a 30 round magazine to defend your home. If you look at the second amendment and its historical context, it is about protecting states from having their rights infringed by the federal government they were creating for a common defense. The purpose of having guns ubiquitous is to deter the federal government from usurping powers not granted to it by the constitution.

The very liberals who fear Trump and call him fascist are protected by the ubiquity of firearms. Not just some subset of firearms used for hunting or home defense but all firearms. It would be very hard for any leader to drum up enough support from the military to form a dictatorship with the threat of such a bloody insurrection. The ubiquity of firearms is much like nuclear weapons. No sane country develops nuclear weapons with an intent to use them. They act as a deterrent against attack. Likewise, we don't own firearms because we every plan to rise up against the federal government, it is the very ubiquity of all firearms that deters leaders from going rogue and assuming extra-constitutional power.

To my way of thinking, it is not the federal government who should regulate firearms, but the individual states. If the citizens of a state choose to elect officials that want to regulate firearms in their state in a certain way that is fine. If I don't like it, I can vote them out of office or simply move to another state. I see much less threat from each individual state regulating firearms as they see fit.

Does the constitution go further than that? Maybe, Justice Scalia says it extends to a personal right but explicitly allows for regulation. Whether that interpretation holds for the long-run or not, only time will tell.

Just my opinion...

Thanks,

Jack

All good points Jack

Who knows what Justice Scalia had in mind, unfortunately we will never know. Was he thinking about class 3 being the line of restriction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yoderjac]

All good points Jack

Who knows what Justice Scalia had in mind, unfortunately we will never know. Was he thinking about class 3 being the line of restriction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was referring to his written opinion on the case involving D.C.s restrictions on gun ownership. It was not a states rights based opinion, it was an individual rights based opinion. At least he got this one decided before he passed. He was quite a man. I met him one day in a local gunsmith shop. He had no security detail and we had a nice chat in the lobby while waited for our firearms.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Smallplot]

@Smallplot im not a snowflake man, your opinions are valid and wont make me cry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never intended to put you in the snowflake category and am truly sorry if it came off that way. Just my optimism for trump is a lot less than yours, especially after reading what he said right before your post. I kind of combined them without intending to. Guess I need to take a deep breath and go play some mind numbing solitaire for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[H20fwler]

I think the law makers will come up with a common sense bill to run through the house and senate then the gun grabbers will attach their bans or restrictions to it and muddy it up and kill it.
Letting anyone take away rights we have now is a very slippery slope, if they are taken away we will never get them back. Tweaking the 2nd amendment at all is a very bad thing.

 

[buckvelvet]

@Smallplot im not a snowflake man, your opinions are valid and wont make me cry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never intended to put you in the snowflake category and am truly sorry if it came off that way. Just my optimism for trump is a lot less than yours, especially after reading what he said right before your post. I kind of combined them without intending to. Guess I need to take a deep breath and go play some mind numbing solitaire for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol no hard feelings man. Im not paying attention a ton to all the media stuff on purpose. You are much more informed of the situation that i am, i have no doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bbcoach]

You can make ALL the Laws you want but if people don't do there jobs then the Laws don't mean crap. The Florida shooting happened because Social Services, FBI, school system and local law enforcement didn't follow up on reports on this young man. Multiple people reported this individual, the school had problems with him and expelled him, the FBI and Social Services had been called, HELLO! This individual had anger and possible mental health issues and NO ONE followed up. No one has addressed, how this individual got into the school. And the school resource officer that didn't enter the school when he heard shots is just pathetic. More laws aren't going to help this issue until PEOPLE are held accountable for doing their jobs and helping people get the help they need. My Heart goes out to these families, students, school and town. Guns don't kill people, People kill people. Let's address the ROOT cause of this shooting, PEOPLE not doing their jobs. DEMAND Accountability!!!

 

[j-bird]

Secure the schools, implement/facilitate a means of armed resistance in the schools as an option, but we MUST fix the system that failed at several levels!

If this guy had run over a bunch of kids with his car.....we would not be talking about banning or putting restrictions cars!

 

[4wanderingeyes]

One thing that really concerns me about the back ground checks, and mental health stuff, is where is the line drawn? About 10 years ago I had to have 5 shoulder surgery, and during my recovery period my wife cheated on me and left me(ex wife now), and during one of my appointments the nurse asked how I was doing, and I explained that my wife just left me, and I was a little depressed, and feeling down. I never felt crazy, or needed to be medicated, just the normal feeling of getting a gut punch you would expect after finding out your wife was cheating on you, and having a DR appointment the very next day. Anyhow, to this day every time I go to the dr, they ask me how my depression is going, and if I feel like I need to talk to someone, or if I feel I need medication for it, and every time I explain that I wasnt depressed, that I was just feeling down, and betrayed after finding out my wife cheated on me, and left me. But to no avail, I continue to get asked on every appointment.

My concern is because of that one appointment, the day after I learned about my wife cheating on me, I choose to tell the nurse about it, that it will restrict my gun rights some day. Another thing that bothers me is, at the time my 14 year old son(20 now) broke a finger in football, and the nurse said that I had to leave the room for some wellfare questions, that will only take a couple minutes. So I left, then to find out on the ride home the questions asked were first if he is abused, and that is a no, but they also asked if we have guns at home, and where they are stored, and if and how much ammo is at home, and where it is stored. After he told me this, I turned around, and went back into the hospital and demanded that any info about guns, ammo, and location of them be deleted from my file, and that is private information.

Well guess what, at my dr appointments, they also ask if I still have guns in my home, with ammo. I flip out every time they ask that question to me and tell them it is none of the damn business!

 

[Catscratch]

The average citizen only know's what they see on self targetd social media. If they are afraid of black guns then they choose sources and sites that only post aniti-gun stuff. This perpetuates fear and missunderstanding. These people truely believe that an AR is more powerful, shoots faster, and is 100% military grade. Never mind that it's action and function is exactly like a mini-14, it's the problem so it should be eliminated.

Same with the constitution. Their self serving new sources tell them hunters don't "need" the AR and leave out that it has nothing to do with hunting. If the average Joe blow cared to understand the constitution this wouldn't be a topic at all.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I'm a gun owner an believe in the 2nd. But here's a question for all of us ..............

Let's say a tyrant in sheep's clothing gets into the oval office. He comes off as being a great guy .......... and then gets power hungry, or decides he wants to declare marshal law and starts confiscating all guns and jailing any political opponents. With all the fire-power the military has ( which he would command ) with drones, missiles, tanks, etc. - what do we think we're going to do with our AR's, 06's, 12 gauges, .45 auto's ?? I know some will say - " It'll never happen here. " Take a good look around the world, and at history, and see how impossible(?) it can be. Why do we think we're immune ??

I'm all for guns - I've been shooting since I was 10 yrs. old. But if a tank is aiming at my house, I don't think my weapons are going to save me or turn the tide. So the point is - if the Feds decide to "take over" a state or states, how would our AR's, etc. defend us ?? We might say - " Well, at least I'm gonna take out as many as I can before they kill me." That sounds good, but a shell from a tank - and I'm powder. Reality.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

Havent you watched Red Dawn?

 

[4wanderingeyes]

They may have more power, but at least we have a deterrent. We are far superior to North Korea, yet we are afraid of what they can do with what they have. We dont mess with China, Russia, because there just wouldnt be a true winner. Everyone would lose.

 

[Catscratch]

Havent you watched Red Dawn?

Lol, I was thinking the exact same thing while reading Brownsbuck post. In a jokingly manner of course. :)

 

[bigbendmarine]

I'm all for guns - I've been shooting since I was 10 yrs. old. But if a tank is aiming at my house, I don't think my weapons are going to save me or turn the tide.

Bowsnbucks, as a former Abrams tank crewman my take may surprise you... sometimes it ends up not being about biggest immediate firepower, as resistance groups end up finding ways to amass more power as time goes by. Revolutionary War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan conflict against the ruskies (and subequently using some of the same weapons we provided against us) all come to mind. Sometimes it's more about how darn stubborn a resistance movement is and who ends up being the most determined to outlast the other. That, and add to it you have to have agreeable / motivated folks to operate tanks and depending on what might ever happen that would motivate our own govt to fire upon citizens that may / or may not be easy to manage (finding agreeable and knowledgeable folks to man the tanks).

All the above shared, bump stocks seem like a no brainer. Strengthening background checks so that there are few less cracks, same thing. Finding ways to legally prevent those diagnosed as mentally ill from having weapons for at least some defined amount of time, all for it. But confiscating guns BEFORE due process is carried out... not so ok with that one and hope Trump was just throwing that out as a decoy flare to dumbfound the libs (think he does that from time to time).

Slight change of focus, but if ever an event points to NOT trusting govt taking care of things it's this one... more I hear on how many govt (school, local police, FBI, etc) failures allowed this to happen, sicker I am about it. Soooo many opportunities were missed to save the students who needlessly died. Should give every citizen pause to believe that ever-increasing regulations will solve the problem. Govt solutions are meaningless when accountability gets spread so thin as to not actually even exist. Again, I'm for a few common sense changes... but also will say I sadly don't think any of it is going to fix the spiritual problem this nation has that's driving such evil deeds.