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

[driftdiver]

Such an incredibly disappointing day

[bolobaby]

Define crazy.     If they are making threats it is actionable.

According to liberals, "Global warming is BS," is crazy talk and you should be institutionalized.

Maybe have your guns taken away, too.

[jpsb]

Doesn't matter. Without specific actions showing specific intent, it is thought police. Be very careful how far down that slippery slope you go.

Well I as sheriff, certainly would have taken Cruz's guns away from him.

[bolobaby]

I'll let you define crazy. All Trump is saying is that it might be better to take the guns away from
crazy people acting in a crazy manner until it can be determined that they are not going to harm
anyone. I don't see that as a very big deal. Back in the 50s and 60s this was a fairly common
protocol. Crazy people guns and alcohol do not mix well.

@jpsb You need to go to the first page and read my fun experience with "due process." Then tell me again how I needn't worry... the gubbermint will "do the right thing" once they determine I'm not crazy.

Yeah, right.

[roamer_1]

I'll let you define crazy.

No, you'll let THEM define crazy.

[txradioguy]

@jpsb You need to go to the first page and read my fun experience with "due process." Then tell me again how I needn't worry... the gubbermint will "do the right thing" once they determine I'm not crazy.

Yeah, right.

@bolobaby he also needs to read #1 in your sig line.

[driftdiver]

I'll let you define crazy. All Trump is saying is that it might be better to take the guns away from
crazy people acting in a crazy manner until it can be determined that they are not going to harm
anyone. I don't see that as a very big deal. Back in the 50s and 60s this was a fairly common
protocol. Crazy people guns and alcohol do not mix well.

Who defines crazy?    Why limit it to guns.   Just arrest anyone who acts "crazy".  Like not believing in global warming or not supporting gay marriage.

The killer committed a felony when he made written threats.   A felony.   All they had to do is arrest him.   Then go to a court and have a judge decide.

Instead you propose letting a cop decide and then letting a judge have input in 6 months or so.  That's IF the person has money to fight it.


Yeah we don't need no stinkun constitution.

[roamer_1]

Well I as sheriff, certainly would have taken Cruz's guns away from him.

Not without probable cause you wouldn't.

[jpsb]

According to liberals, "Global warming is BS," is crazy talk and you should be institutionalized.

Maybe have your guns taken away, too.

The jury is still out on global warming but it is to a large extent not man made and will not threaten
life on Earth anytime soon.

[txradioguy]

Not without probable cause you wouldn't.

Sure he would. Trump has allowed a certaiin group of people to release their inner bully/jack booted thug.

Because you know...MAGA

[driftdiver]

Not without probable cause you wouldn't.

@roamer_1

They had it with him.   Of course they had to do their job.

[INVAR]

According to liberals, "Global warming is BS," is crazy talk and you should be institutionalized.

Maybe have your guns taken away, too.

Didn't the FBI declare in an official governing document that Right Wing Conservatives were 'crazy' and labeled us Domestic Terror threats back in 2009?

I guess with Trump telling us that they can take guns first if the government declares you to be 'crazy' and we can worry about due process later, those of us who identify as Conservative are already identified as a group needing our guns taken away first by the government Trump now heads.

Just raise your right arms folks, salute and stop worrying about your rights and learn to love Trump.

[jpsb]

Not without probable cause you wouldn't.

Like I said back in the day that is exactly how it would have gone down. No probable cause (other
than being bat shit crazy) and a week in a mental hospital for evaluation. Doctor says no guns,
presto no guns. I'll bet a clever sheriff could still do that today.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

They had it with him.   Of course they had to do their job.

Then arrest him, run him through due process, and get him defined as crazy.
That still shouldn't allow them to confiscate the weapons, btw. Force the sale through relatives, perhaps, but they have no right to his equity.

[roamer_1]

Like I said back in the day that is exactly how it would have gone down. No probable cause (other
than being bat shit crazy) and a week in a mental hospital for evaluation. Doctor says no guns,
presto no guns. I'll bet a clever sheriff could still do that today.

Not around here.

[NavyCanDo]

Well I as sheriff, certainly would have taken Cruz's guns away from him.

Parents or legal guardians don't need probable cause or due process for a minor living under their roof. There was more than sufficient evidence that this kid living in their home was a dangerous troubled twisted soul.

[XenaLee]

You have a mentally retarded, emotionally distressed person making vague threats (not
actionable) to shoot something up. And he has the means to shoot something up. What would
you do? Would you be opposed to taking his firearms from him? Until it can be determined if he
really is a threat to himself and others?

Not an ideal solution with plenty of room for abuse, but it does seem like a common sense thing
to do.

I know it sounds logical on the face of it.  But.... beneath the facade there's the threat to OUR liberty and 2nd Amendment rights.  I keep thinking about how the Soviets dealt with their "dissidents".   First, they declared them mentally unstable/insane.  Disarming would have come next if they had been armed.  Next came shipping the nuts off to Siberia....never heard from again.

We have those laws (constraints) for a reason.  You do get that, don't you?

[edpc]

Trump repealed a bad EO that potentially took guns away from people under someone else’s care.  They were deemed incapable of ownership because of physical or mental capacity.  I guess ideas are only good or bad, depending on who has them.

[goodwithagun]

Well I as sheriff, certainly would have taken Cruz's guns away from him.

Sounds like something Trump would say.

[sneakypete]

Am I the only one wondering if Trump is playing "whack the mole" with the Dims,by going on tv with people like Fineswine and agreeing with them that "there should be laws to prevent these people from getting guns,and there should be background checks!",getting them to all smile for the camera and attempt to kiss his ass?

Just imagine their joy at the thought of being able to brag that " President Trump is on our side,while your old white man congressman or Senator is glad school children were murdered by these evil weapons!"

I wonder how happy they will be if he holds a press conference in  a week or so to announce he had been wrong because there are ALREADY laws on the books that would have disarmed Cruz IF THE LOCAL DIM OFFICIALS HAD FOLLOWED THE LAW instead of ignoring crime to get federal grant money?

He can then follow that up by naming the local sheriff and the local school board members,and cite the laws they ignored that allowed this to happen,stating that in essence the deaths were THEIR fault for allowing a mentally troubled youth they knew was armed to go free to shoot people?

Trump will have already been on record and broadast into homes all over America,even leftist strongholds that never report anything positive a Republican does,and people/voters who really don't normally pay much attention to politics until it's time to vote will be saying to themselves,"Self,Trump CLEARLY proved  he was for public safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals last week,and now we find it it was the fault of the local Dim  politicians,not lax or non-existent gun laws!"

Trump will be on record as being FOR protecting the public by keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people,and he will be on tv saying how it was the Dims in Florida that keep EXISTING LAWS FROM BEING ENFORCED.

Suddenly,he looks like a statesman concerned with public safety,and has been on tv saying the laws are already in place and we don't need more laws.

Who are the voters going to believe then,the guy that was all for more gun control until he found out the exact laws he were proposing were already in place and being ignored,or the Dims,who will suddenly turn against him again?

NOT saying this WILL happen,but he's done similar things in the past. Don't forget,his whole business model is based around convincing people he is a buffoon they can ignore and dominate,and then at the end he ends up being the one that leaves with the money.

[txradioguy]

I know it sounds logical on the face of it.  But.... beneath the facade there's the threat to OUR liberty and 2nd Amendment rights.  I keep thinking about how the Soviets dealt with their "dissidents".   First, they declared them mentally unstable/insane.  Disarming would have come next if they had been armed.  Next came shipping the nuts off to Siberia....never heard from again.

We have those laws (constraints) for a reason.  You do get that, don't you?

He doesn't care because it's Trump doing it

[txradioguy]

Am I the only one wondering if Trump is playing "whack the mole" with the Dims,by going on tv with people like Fineswine and agreeing with them that "there should be laws to prevent these people from getting guns,and there should be background checks!",getting them to all smile for the camera and attempt to kiss his ass?

Just imagine their joy at the thought of being able to brag that " President Trump is on our side,while your old white man congressman or Senator is glad school children were murdered by these evil weapons!"

I wonder how happy they will be if he holds a press conference in  a week or so to announce he had been wrong because there are ALREADY laws on the books that would have disarmed Cruz IF THE LOCAL DIM OFFICIALS HAD FOLLOWED THE LAW instead of ignoring crime to get federal grant money?

He can then follow that up by naming the local sheriff and the local school board members,and cite the laws they ignored that allowed this to happen,stating that in essence the deaths were THEIR fault for allowing a mentally troubled youth they knew was armed to go free to shoot people?

Trump will have already been on record and broadast into homes all over America,even leftist strongholds that never report anything positive a Republican does,and people/voters who really don't normally pay much attention to politics until it's time to vote will be saying to themselves,"Self,Trump CLEARLY proved  he was for public safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals last week,and now we find it it was the fault of the local Dim  politicians,not lax or non-existent gun laws!"

Trump will be on record as being FOR protecting the public by keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people,and he will be on tv saying how it was the Dims in Florida that keep EXISTING LAWS FROM BEING ENFORCED.

Suddenly,he looks like a statesman concerned with public safety,and has been on tv saying the laws are already in place and we don't need more laws.

Who are the voters going to believe then,the guy that was all for more gun control until he found out the exact laws he were proposing were already in place and being ignored,or the Dims,who will suddenly turn against him again?

NOT saying this WILL happen,but he's done similar things in the past. Don't forget,his whole business model is based around convincing people he is a buffoon they can ignore and dominate,and then at the end he ends up being the one that leaves with the money.

Yes...you're the only one.

Next question.

[goodwithagun]

Am I the only one wondering if Trump is playing "whack the mole" with the Dims,by going on tv with people like Fineswine and agreeing with them that "there should be laws to prevent these people from getting guns,and there should be background checks!",getting them to all smile for the camera and attempt to kiss his ass?

Just imagine their joy at the thought of being able to brag that " President Trump is on our side,while your old white man congressman or Senator is glad school children were murdered by these evil weapons!"

I wonder how happy they will be if he holds a press conference in  a week or so to announce he had been wrong because there are ALREADY laws on the books that would have disarmed Cruz IF THE LOCAL DIM OFFICIALS HAD FOLLOWED THE LAW instead of ignoring crime to get federal grant money?

He can then follow that up by naming the local sheriff and the local school board members,and cite the laws they ignored that allowed this to happen,stating that in essence the deaths were THEIR fault for allowing a mentally troubled youth they knew was armed to go free to shoot people?

Trump will have already been on record and broadast into homes all over America,even leftist strongholds that never report anything positive a Republican does,and people/voters who really don't normally pay much attention to politics until it's time to vote will be saying to themselves,"Self,Trump CLEARLY proved  he was for public safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals last week,and now we find it it was the fault of the local Dim  politicians,not lax or non-existent gun laws!"

Trump will be on record as being FOR protecting the public by keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people,and he will be on tv saying how it was the Dims in Florida that keep EXISTING LAWS FROM BEING ENFORCED.

Suddenly,he looks like a statesman concerned with public safety,and has been on tv saying the laws are already in place and we don't need more laws.

Who are the voters going to believe then,the guy that was all for more gun control until he found out the exact laws he were proposing were already in place and being ignored,or the Dims,who will suddenly turn against him again?

NOT saying this WILL happen,but he's done similar things in the past. Don't forget,his whole business model is based around convincing people he is a buffoon they can ignore and dominate,and then at the end he ends up being the one that leaves with the money.

This reads like a compilation of the FR thread on the same topic. Thirteen dimensional chess! The Art of the Deal! Whack a Mole! Bait and switch!

[RoosGirl]

You have a mentally retarded, emotionally distressed person making vague threats (not
actionable) to shoot something up. And he has the means to shoot something up. What would
you do? Would you be opposed to taking his firearms from him? Until it can be determined if he
really is a threat to himself and others?

Not an ideal solution with plenty of room for abuse, but it does seem like a common sense thing
to do.

See Question 11f. of the NICS background check form.

[jpsb]

@bolobaby he also needs to read #1 in your sig line.

Yall were ripping Trump a new one for proposing something that was fairly common up until the
late 60's early 70s. All I'm saying is it not some crazy idea Trump just pulled out of his butt.

I am also very much in favor of ending gun free zones. Gun free zones are really killing fields,
end them. And how about shooting instructions at schools, teach the snowflakes how to shoot
back. LOL, that would drive the Marxists Hogg wild.