Trump just caved on gun control

[geronl]

http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-just-caved-on-gun-control/

Trump tweets:

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

Wow. Up until 2012, Trump supported the assault weapons ban. He only became “pro-second amendment” when he began thinking about running for President. This year he got the NRA endorsement and he just threw them under the bus.

Banning people on the terror watch list and no fly list are terrible ideas because the second amendment is a fundamental right. The Republicans proposed a plan last year killed by Democrats that would trigger a probable cause hearing if someone was flagged, but never endorsed an outright prohibition on American citizens owning guns when it could be a government screw up.

[roamer_1]

http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-just-caved-on-gun-control/

Trump tweets:

This is my 'I'm not surprised in the least' face.

[sitetest]

http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-just-caved-on-gun-control/

Trump tweets:

So much for the second amendment.   It looks like we will have two major candidates who are probably gun control.  Just a matter of degree as to which one is worse.

[sinkspur]

Trump believes he can punish a business if it moves offshore.  He believes he can do it all by himself.

So we know he doesn't give a damn about due process.

[don-o]

Everything is negotiable for Trump. The concept of absolute is not in his worldview.

[Ghost Bear]

I'm shocked and amazed at this turn.  Not really.

Waiting to see how long it takes his supporters to chime in to explain how he was misrepresented, misunderstood, or maybe how what he's saying actually makes sense (to them.)

[Wingnut]

Two or more clarifications by donald about what he really said are still to come on this issue. Tha man can walk a circle on a straight line.

[Ghost Bear]

I have mixed emotions about this.  On the one hand you have the 2nd amendment, which is the "right to bear arms".  Ok what exactly is that?  At the time it was written, they referred to pistols and rifles....not sure many citizens owned a cannon.  So basically they were saying pistols and rifles.

Ok...here we are in 2016 with all kinds of weapons available on the open market.  What should be legal and what should be illegal?  Can I own a hellfire missile?...doubtful.  So what exactly can we own and how is this determined. 

I've fired an "assault rifle" and it was fun to shoot, but not practical for hunting, unless you want to slaughter hogs, which may not be such a bad idea.  Personally I don't own one and would likely never buy one, just because it's not practical.  If you are looking to protect yourself from your overreaching government I could see owning one.

If someone breaks into my house at night....the last thing I'd be looking for is my "assault rifle", it would be my loaded handgun.  They make fun toys.....but.......  Like I say, I have mixed emotions about them......

Better get ready to give up your computer then, as those weren't around when the Founders wrote the First Amendment either. 

[oldmomster]

So much for the second amendment.   It looks like we will have two major candidates who are probably gun control.  Just a matter of degree as to which one is worse.

excerpt:  'plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would let the government delay firearms sales to suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours. Under that proposal, the transaction could be halted permanently if federal officials could persuade a judge to do so during that waiting period.

The NRA has backed Cornyn's plan.'

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-to-discuss-terrorism-watch-list-no-fly-ban-8199467.php

Personally I like the idea of DEPORTING anyone on that 'terror watch list'......

[ScottinVA]

Everything is negotiable for Trump. The concept of absolute is not in his worldview.

Which means: Other than personal enrichment, the man has no core values.

[skeeter]

This is one of those ideas that sounds inarguable on its face, until the administration consults with the Southern Poverty Law Center to decide who should be put on the terrorist watch list.

[geronl]

I have mixed emotions about this.  On the one hand you have the 2nd amendment, which is the "right to bear arms".  Ok what exactly is that?  At the time it was written, they referred to pistols and rifles....not sure many citizens owned a cannon.  So basically they were saying pistols and rifles.

Cannons weren't uncommon on civilian ships when it was written, even as late as the Civil War you had private purchases of Gatlin guns by those forming their own military units.

[ABX]

Trump didn't cave, he just knows better that sometimes it is important to give up liberty for security. That's why he is joining Hillary on this. Trump knows better than us.

[Jazzhead]

If folks on a terrorist no-fly list can be banned from boarding a plane,  why cannot they be banned from buying guns?

If the answer is the need for due process, then let's address what due process can be employed to protect our rights.   We have already established tribunals - the FISA courts - to provide due process with respect to government attempts to engage specific surveillance of individuals.    Maybe the solution is to require the government to provide evidence to a FISA court in order to place an individual on a no-buy list. 

[bob434]

as someoen said- this isw back door gun control because soon everyone will be o n the no fly list or a 'watch list'

[ABX]

Cannons weren't uncommon on civilian ships when it was written, even as late as the Civil War you had private purchases of Gatlin guns by those forming their own military units.

The warships themselves were initially privately owned.  Madison stated in Federalist 46 it was important the citizens always be free to be armed as any standing army so they may never be subjugated by such.

[Jazzhead]

as someoen said- this isw back door gun control because soon everyone will be o n the no fly list or a 'watch list'

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.   

[Mechanicos]

HMMM. Trump says he is meeting with NRA over the democrats' proposals and this is negative?

Oh please stop lying #neverTrump. claiming incorrectly he said JUST watch lists. The original quote also included "known enemy of State" a legal term meaning accessory before the fact. There is enough stuff to have fun attacking Trump with without acting like democrats and being dishonest about what he said.

[ABX]

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.

You do realize that by being a member of conservative forums, you are likely on a suspect list somewhere. So let me ask, what due process would you accept to have your personal rights stripped when you have not committed nor been convicted of a crime, only suspect based on some bureaucrats opinion? What about other rights? Speech? Protection against search? 

[driftdiver]

If folks on a terrorist no-fly list can be banned from boarding a plane,  why cannot they be banned from buying guns?

If the answer is the need for due process, then let's address what due process can be employed to protect our rights.   We have already established tribunals - the FISA courts - to provide due process with respect to government attempts to engage specific surveillance of individuals.    Maybe the solution is to require the government to provide evidence to a FISA court in order to place an individual on a no-buy list.

How often does the Fisa court say no?

[sitetest]

I have mixed emotions about this.  On the one hand you have the 2nd amendment, which is the "right to bear arms".  Ok what exactly is that?  At the time it was written, they referred to pistols and rifles....not sure many citizens owned a cannon.  So basically they were saying pistols and rifles.

Ok...here we are in 2016 with all kinds of weapons available on the open market.  What should be legal and what should be illegal?  Can I own a hellfire missile?...doubtful.  So what exactly can we own and how is this determined. 

I've fired an "assault rifle" and it was fun to shoot, but not practical for hunting, unless you want to slaughter hogs, which may not be such a bad idea.  Personally I don't own one and would likely never buy one, just because it's not practical.  If you are looking to protect yourself from your overreaching government I could see owning one.

If someone breaks into my house at night....the last thing I'd be looking for is my "assault rifle", it would be my loaded handgun.  They make fun toys.....but.......  Like I say, I have mixed emotions about them......

What lying don stumpy is proposing is to take away the fundamental second amendment rights from folks based on a beauracrat's  say-so.

The standard has always been, to deny someone's second amendment rights, one must be convicted of a crime in a court of law by a jury of one's peers, with a right to counsel, and a right to face ones accusers.

Lying liberal don stumpy has gone over to the  dammocrap side  on this issue.

[ABX]

HMMM. Trump says he is meeting with NRA over the democrats' proposals and this is negative?

It absolutely is when he is meeting with them as a proponent for the Democrat proposal.

[Ghost Bear]

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.

It is madness to believe that a president such as Obama, or Hillary, or Trump for that matter, would not declare any political enemy as a "known terrorist sympathizer". Members of Obama's government are already on record as saying the "extreme right wing" is as dangerous as Islamic terrorism. Do you really believe they don't consider you and I members of the "extreme right wing", and therefore that we shouldn't be able to buy a gun?

[driftdiver]

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.

But it makes sense to pass a law focused on everyone???

Whats madness is to invite terrorist sympathizers into this country.

Its madness is to allow them to walk the streets!

[INVAR]

Not if due process is employed.   It's not impossible,  the mechanisms exist.   But it is madness to refuse to consider limiting the ability of known terrorist sympathizers to get guns.

Due process????  In this current post-Constitutional government????

No list is going to stop Jihadists from getting weapons to kill us.

Lists are only going to stop law abiding American citizens from being able to buy, keep and bear arms.

PERIOD.

Screw new lists.  Screw new "mechanisms".

If we were serious about liberty - we would be demanding all gun restrictions be lifted and advocate the American people arm themselves up, because it is clear that we are on our own when it comes to self defense.