Trump calls for background checks

[Heyjoe]

Hey tits:

I'm not saying there was any better option

 

[44Brent]

When Trump gives speeches to the NRA he is all for the 2nd Amendment and unwavering in support of gun rights. When he is on TV and wants the support of leftist media he is all in favor of gun control. Trump has no principles. He wants your votes, and wants as much gun control as he can get. The reason he now supports gun control is because he thinks that is where the votes are.

Any notions of Trump playing 64Dimensional Chess are nothing more than wishful thinking justify the fact that Trump has no principles or core beliefs on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I wasn't calling you or anyone else out, Jim.

I know you didn't, I was just making a point and used the "I" word...

I suppose I'm just sick of hearing people ( members of my own family included), talk like this man stuck it to them.

Many here are doing the same and it erks me too.

He's wearing Nancy's pantys and sucking on Dianne's thumb.

He is a business man and will do what he thinks is best to get stuff done no matter who he deals with.
A lot I don't agree with but the lesser of two evils. Dems are very powerful in the swamp.

Maybe so. One of the few things that put me firmly in trump's corner was the hope that he wasn't a career politician and therefore wouldn't play those games.

Same here, most Americans have had it with career politicians and hopefully they will stand strong and we can get most of what we want corrected.

Do as you say, say what you mean.

Guess I was wrong.

 

[titsonritz]

When Trump gives speeches to the NRA he is all for the 2nd Amendment and unwavering in support of gun rights. When he is on TV and wants the support of leftist media he is all in favor of gun control. Trump has no principles. He wants your votes, and wants as much gun control as he can get. The reason he now supports gun control is because he thinks that is where the votes are.

Any notions of Trump playing 64Dimensional Chess are nothing more than wishful thinking justify the fact that Trump has no principles or core beliefs on the 2nd Amendment.

Feel free to vote for Booker, Beto, Harris or whomever and see if the works for you, I'll be voting for Trump.

 

[11Charlie]

, I'll be voting for Trump.

Hell ya!!! There is no other option period!!

 

[ARFrog]

At the risk of any potential ridicule, here are my current bullitt points concerning a National discussion on mass shootings. While the list is not exhaustive and could be either expanded or contracted, it seems reasonable to have a place to start a discussion.

Givens:

• We have a right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
• Said right to bear arms is a personal one and as such should not be infringed.
• We acknowledge there is currently a problem with mass shootings even if we differ as to how widespread the problem is based upon the events occurring on a per capita basis

Discussion Points for helping to solve or reduce the problem of mass shootings:

1.) Establish a national background check registry to be used in all States when purchasing firearms. Have exemptions for persons with all valid FFL licenses who have already been reviewed by AFT. Institute on a going forward basis with so called grandfathering of existing owned firearms.

2.) Work to abolish so called "gun free zones." It has been shown in the preponderance of mass shootings that they have occurred in gun free zones where citizens have no way to fight back unless law enforcement is present. In those shootings in non-gun free zones, it is demonstrable that the number of mass casualties events and casualties themselves are reduced when armed citizens are possibly or actually present

3.) Pass a National CCW law that would standardize and allow reciprocity in all States

4.) Establish a minimum 72 hour moratorium on anything beyond the bare minimum of information concerning mass shootings. It is demonstrable that in the rush to fill air-time or print media often initial information on mass shooting events is wrong and/or incomplete. Additionally, the notoriety of the time spent on mass shootings following an event often seems to cause secondary copy-cat events.

5.) Prohibit political fund raising based on the events of mass shootings. The ethics of doing so raises the question of why should individuals or parties that so ever seek to help solve the problem if they have a financial incentive not to.

6.) Promote the enforcement of existing laws. Adding an ever-thickening cover of new laws based on emotional reactions without current enforcement is counterproductive. (Example – Parkland High School in Florida)

7.) Have a discussion concerning the mental health component of gun ownership. Perhaps this is where so called "Red Flag" laws would be discussed. Note: any enactment should have clearly defined thresholds for enactment and due recourse for abuses or restoration of rights.

8.) Have a discussion of the effects of prescription of psychotropic drugs and gun ownership. It seems that this subject is often ignored in national discussions even though it is present in many cases.

9.) Have a discussion concerning the effects of violent media – violent movies, video games, etc. (If my 18 – now 21 – year old cannot use their right to purchase and bare arms, what if any restrictions should be on purchasing and viewing other materials?)

10.) Have a discussion as to whether or not there are threshold issues – and if so enumerate them -above which personal rights to bare arms can be infringed either on a temporary or permanent basis

11.) Remove inaccurate "triggering" phrases such as "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" from the discussion lexicon. Replace them with accurate names and descriptions of functionality.

12.) Allow for gun safety education/curriculum in schools if endorsed by local communities and school districts (Note: if you can talk about pregnancy, condoms, lifestyles, etc, should you be able to talk about firearms?)


So what say you? What could you support or add - and why? Likewise, what is non negotiable or needs to be removed - and why?

 

[bbbass]

Frog, I support a voluntary 72hr moratorium on news reporting and forum discussions following a mass shooting. However, one cannot pass a law enforcing a moratorium on the MSM w/o violating the First Amendment. I see no more validity to doing so as I do to infringing on 2A. Do you think differently?

 

[notazombie]

You got a lotta rules, man.

 

[ARFrog]

Frog, I support a voluntary 72hr moratorium on news reporting and forum discussions following a mass shooting. However, one cannot pass a law enforcing a moratorium on the MSM w/o violating the First Amendment. I see no more validity to doing so as I do to infringing on 2A. Do you think differently?

bbass, I am not saying I do or don't at this point. I am saying that we need to discuss it.

It always "chaps my hide" that we are asked to make "concessions" about certain rights without ever talking about concessions by others. Can you imagine how the media would howl over such a moratorium? But why is their right superior in nature, placement or moral authority to a 2A right? Why do they get to make money off exercising their speech but I do not get to have freedom in mine? Why do I have to spend time and effort with blocking magazines, adding - then removing - bullet buttons, removing evil features, limiting ammunition purchases, having background checks or limitations on purchase of ammunition, etc, etc???

I would agree that infringing is infringing - but do we ever see it talked about in these terms?

 

[nammac]

Hmmm.

How about a 10 to 30 day wait on all media reporting. Have to to do the background check, make sure just the facts are presented. Also that no agenda is being presented, nor misrepresented in the report...

/sarcasm

Truly tho, the MSM needs to stop their hype and go back to just reporting the news. Verified facts.

Not interpreting the news, just reporting it. No spin, no hyped graphics & music.

The aggrandizing of these horrific acts simply promulgates it for the next unstable evil sociopath(s), hoping for there moment of infamy.

This is exactly true, report just the facts, I can form my con opinions and conjecture, don't need them from some overpaid azzwipe...

 

[ARFrog]

You got a lotta rules, man.

Read again...no rules...discussion points!

I'm sure that Sacramento, Salem, Olympia, Washington D.C. etc would be happy to keep cranking out rules. My point is what is my/our response? I believe that there is no such thing as a vacuum. Either we participate in the discussion and seek to win the day, or it will be decided for us and I predict there will be a lot of potential felons among our ranks

 

[308]

Waiting for all the gung ho trumpers to explain why this is actually him fighting FOR us.

I'm not saying there was any better option but blind support for any politician is toxic and destructive.

These people want to rule over you.

Sadly, the people want someone to rule them.

Did you see what one of our illustrious LEOs said a few days before these shootings?

 

[nammac]

Sadly, the people want someone to rule them.

Did you see what one of our illustrious LEOs said a few days before these shootings?

View attachment 606173

Leave the security to them... No thanks, I'll take personal responsibility for me and mine, and I'll keep my weapon with me, thanks just the same.

If my weapon isn't welcome, then neither is my hard earned $$$

 

[bbbass]

bbass, I am not saying I do or don't at this point. I am saying that we need to discuss it.

It always "chaps my hide" that we are asked to make "concessions" about certain rights without ever talking about concessions by others. Can you imagine how the media would howl over such a moratorium? But why is their right superior in nature, placement or moral authority to a 2A right? Why do they get to make money off exercising their speech but I do not get to have freedom in mine? Why do I have to spend time and effort with blocking magazines, adding - then removing - bullet buttons, removing evil features, limiting ammunition purchases, having background checks or limitations on purchase of ammunition, etc, etc???

I would agree that infringing is infringing - but do we ever see it talked about in these terms?

I understand your frustration with our efforts to fight 2A infringement. But IMO I'm not sure if you are weaponizing discussion, or if you honestly think that anybody will listen. In the last decade that has not been happening. Everyone is entrenched and no amount of discussion is going to change what is going to happen now.

 

[ARFrog]

I understand your frustration with our efforts to fight 2A infringement. But IMO I'm not sure if you are weaponizing discussion, or if you honestly think that anybody will listen. In the last decade that has not been happening. Everyone is entrenched and no amount of discussion is going to change what is going to happen now.

Sadly, you may be correct that neither side is listening.

The progressives come up with a plan or strategy and then try over and over again until successful.

The 2A community uses their "right" as a shield without any discourse or plan of what they stand for or educating the populace about same.

What's our policy plank? Don't just tell me that it is a right that cannot be infringed - I know that isn't true (eg - felons, persons with 5150s)

I am not looking to "weaponize" the discussion. I am looking for a cogent recitation of points that I can use while I stand on my home made soap box and declare in my sphere of influence.

 

[notazombie]

So well put, @bbbass. There's really nothing left to say.

 

[USMC-03]

He also said we need more "Red Flag Laws".....

Yes and this certainly made my ears tune in harder. But he also included due process in with that same comment. Thus far it seems red flag laws have been about anything but due process; perhaps Mr. Trump's intention is putting some Constitutional grounding in this area. Perhaps not. Watch closely for the devil is in the details.

 

[11Charlie]

So well put, @bbbabbb. There's really nothing left to say.

There is one thing left to say but its not with words but with the almighty sword!! In our case a lead one!

 

[ma96782]

"Stronger BGCs"....... like having stronger visa and immigration laws/rules?

One at a time Mr. TRUMP.

Aloha, Mark

 

[nammac]

At the risk of any potential ridicule, here are my current bullitt points concerning a National discussion on mass shootings. While the list is not exhaustive and could be either expanded or contracted, it seems reasonable to have a place to start a discussion.

Givens:

• We have a right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
• Said right to bear arms is a personal one and as such should not be infringed.
• We acknowledge there is currently a problem with mass shootings even if we differ as to how widespread the problem is based upon the events occurring on a per capita basis

Discussion Points for helping to solve or reduce the problem of mass shootings:

1.) Establish a national background check registry to be used in all States when purchasing firearms. Have exemptions for persons with all valid FFL licenses who have already been reviewed by AFT. Institute on a going forward basis with so called grandfathering of existing owned firearms.
This must be all inclusive, including mental health records, private as well as military. Any agency found to not be providing accurate and timely information should feel the full force of the law and the head of such agency or military branch charged accordingly.
2.) Work to abolish so called "gun free zones." It has been shown in the preponderance of mass shootings that they have occurred in gun free zones where citizens have no way to fight back unless law enforcement is present. In those shootings in non-gun free zones, it is demonstrable that the number of mass casualties events and casualties themselves are reduced when armed citizens are possibly or actually present
Yes, agreed 100%, "gun free zones" are simply soft, unprotected targets
3.) Pass a National CCW law that would standardize and allow reciprocity in all States
Yes, agreed 100%, no more confusing conundrum of rules and regulations
4.) Establish a minimum 72 hour moratorium on anything beyond the bare minimum of information concerning mass shootings. It is demonstrable that in the rush to fill air-time or print media often initial information on mass shooting events is wrong and/or incomplete. Additionally, the notoriety of the time spent on mass shootings following an event often seems to cause secondary copy-cat events.
Must tread carefully so as to not impact the First Amendment, but I understand the spirit of reporting only confirmed and verified facts. All else is fake news.
5.) Prohibit political fund raising based on the events of mass shootings. The ethics of doing so raises the question of why should individuals or parties that so ever seek to help solve the problem if they have a financial incentive not to.
Yes, this is morally correct. And I agree that politicians shouldn't be dancing in the blood of innocent victims, but they do. There needs to be penalties that are harsh and immediate, not sure what would work best, but swift penalization would be required.
6.) Promote the enforcement of existing laws. Adding an ever-thickening cover of new laws based on emotional reactions without current enforcement is counterproductive. (Example – Parkland High School in Florida)
Perhaps a moratorium on new laws, additional laws cannot be proposed until some specified time after the event. Demand enforcement of existing laws.
7.) Have a discussion concerning the mental health component of gun ownership. Perhaps this is where so called "Red Flag" laws would be discussed. Note: any enactment should have clearly defined thresholds for enactment and due recourse for abuses or restoration of rights.
So yes, discussion regarding mental health and the crisis that current exists in America. We needs a meaningful mental health process, supported by the federal government, like it was before Regan dismantled it. I'm against red flag laws as they require the accused to expend life savings to regain their rights. A due process would be acceptable, but not the fast track, rubber stamp process current red flag laws employ.
8.) Have a discussion of the effects of prescription of psychotropic drugs and gun ownership. It seems that this subject is often ignored in national discussions even though it is present in many cases.
Yes, not only the prescribing of psychotropic drugs, but how big pharma lines the pockets of elected legislators to ensure things don't change. Big pharma needs an independent counsel investigation.
9.) Have a discussion concerning the effects of violent media – violent movies, video games, etc. (If my 18 – now 21 – year old cannot use their right to purchase and bare arms, what if any restrictions should be on purchasing and viewing other materials?
Agreed. Either make these violent media including music available to those 21 and over, or simply create a process by which this garbage can be removed from our society.
10.) Have a discussion as to whether or not there are threshold issues – and if so enumerate them -above which personal rights to bare arms can be infringed either on a temporary or permanent basis
No. The Second Amendment isn't up for negotiations, period. I'm sure I'll take flak for this one...
11.) Remove inaccurate "triggering" phrases such as "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" from the discussion lexicon. Replace them with accurate names and descriptions of functionality.
Correcting the vernacular of the MSM and the anti-gun crowd, I agree with. This would do wonders to help the uninformed to better understand the lies they're being told.

12.) Allow for gun safety education/curriculum in schools if endorsed by local communities and school districts (Note: if you can talk about pregnancy, condoms, lifestyles, etc, should you be able to talk about firearms?)
Yes, without question. If school-age children can be taught about sex and birth control, they sure as heck should be able to be taught about gun safety!

So what say you? What could you support or add - and why? Likewise, what is non negotiable or needs to be removed - and why?

My responses are in bold italic above, thought it easier to do that than to just write the responses...