• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump: take the firearms first, go through due process second

This is something I was wondering about. Not the reaction of those who support Trump, but the reaction of those who oppose Trump.

The opposition to Trump is so hysterical that if he were to say "the sky is blue" some would respond with "No, it is light blue, you are a racist sexist homophobe islamophobe for saying otherwise."

Well, he's just come up with a gun grab that would make even Obama blush. Quite audacious.

Is it causing his reflexive opponents to side with him? Or is it causing them to oppose gun control and embrace gun rights the way that some did in January of 2017?

Underseer, it seems, is annoyed that Trump is not siding with Underseer and the rest of the Republicans on this.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
This is something I was wondering about. Not the reaction of those who support Trump, but the reaction of those who oppose Trump.

The opposition to Trump is so hysterical that if he were to say "the sky is blue" some would respond with "No, it is light blue, you are a racist sexist homophobe islamophobe for saying otherwise."

Well, he's just come up with a gun grab that would make even Obama blush. Quite audacious.

Is it causing his reflexive opponents to side with him? Or is it causing them to oppose gun control and embrace gun rights the way that some did in January of 2017?

Underseer, it seems, is annoyed that Trump is not siding with Underseer and the rest of the Republicans on this.
Click to expand...
You seem to utterly fail Constitution 101. A key Constitutional phrase was involved in Underseer's OP, "due process". A lot of people put a bunch of importance on the 4th and 5th Amendments, understanding that those two Amendments are our true source of liberty in this country. Just because we think limitations of what firearms should be available to the general public, doesn't mean we think the Police should have the power to ignore the Constitutional rights we have.

It seems pathetic that a self-avowed Libertarian not understand that not small distinction.

Trump proposed a grossly unconstitutional idea, and you seem upset that just because it was anti-gun in some form, that Underseer and the likes didn't say 'Hey, anti-gun, I love Trump now.'
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
This is something I was wondering about. Not the reaction of those who support Trump, but the reaction of those who oppose Trump.

The opposition to Trump is so hysterical that if he were to say "the sky is blue" some would respond with "No, it is light blue, you are a racist sexist homophobe islamophobe for saying otherwise."

Well, he's just come up with a gun grab that would make even Obama blush. Quite audacious.

Is it causing his reflexive opponents to side with him? Or is it causing them to oppose gun control and embrace gun rights the way that some did in January of 2017?

Underseer, it seems, is annoyed that Trump is not siding with Underseer and the rest of the Republicans on this.
Click to expand...

I'd be siding with Trump on this, except for one glaring fact that is hard to ignore:
His word is worth less than its weight in horse shit.
He has demonstrated that time and time again. It works to his benefit because his supporters don't care if he says he's going to come take their guns; they know he won't. But there might be some gullible Democrats (sorry for the redundancy) who could be swayed to his side, at no cost to his base numbers.
 
Elixir said:
I'd be siding with Trump on this, except for one glaring fact that is hard to ignore:
His word is worth less than their weight in horse shit.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Today, Trump wants to take guns without due process.
Which do you think he's more likely to say tomorrow?
a) The Attorney General, Mr. Magoo, is cloistered with lawyers and law enforcement experts to craft our gun grabbing program, even as we speak.

or

b) I never said I wanted to take guns without due process! What I said was (insert blather here)...
 
or

c) Declare martial law in Texas and corral the shrubs; and fire the cattle guards :D
 
If he were to actually follow through with it, which I doubt, I'd be against it as well due to the lack of due process. Then again I'm opposed to taking people's firearms away on an accusation. Show me at least clear & convincing evidence of mental instability, while giving the defendant the same rights he'd have in a criminal trial, or proof of guilt of a violent felony beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Even if I was for taking guns from people, it absolutely cannot be done without due process. The way that would be achieved is through the Takings Clause (just compensation required for private property taken by the government).

The real issue here is that Trump is so fucking clueless about the way our government works at its most foundational levels; even after a year in office. You'd think that being exposed to it so deeply on such a daily basis, that one would grasp it through immersion alone. But then again, one might assume that a person holding the office of POTUS would actively engage in learning about things that are vital to function in the office competently.

But nope. Trump remains valiantly ignorant in the face of it all. He's learned nothing. He hasn't even learned the child's lesson of keeping your mouth shut so that at least you have a chance of having other people think you aren't an ignoramus.
 
Opoponax said:
Even if I was for taking guns from people, it absolutely cannot be done without due process. The way that would be achieved is through the Takings Clause (just compensation required for private property taken by the government).
Click to expand...
Yup...kind of like Australia did.

The real issue here is that Trump is so fucking clueless about the way our government works at its most foundational levels; even after a year in office. You'd think that being exposed to it so deeply on such a daily basis, that one would grasp it through immersion alone. But then again, one might assume that a person holding the office of POTUS would actively engage in learning about things that are vital to function in the office competently.

But nope. Trump remains valiantly ignorant in the face of it all. He's learned nothing. He hasn't even learned the child's lesson of keeping your mouth shut so that at least you have a chance of having other people think you aren't an ignoramus.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is so much that FFvC is 'clueless', as it is that he generally doesn't care about how government works or its rules. I think this is similar to how he treats the truth, it is simply a tool to use (or not use) when convenient...being the narcissist that he is.
 
He speaks like a CEO. "If I want something to happen, then I just say it, and it happens. And if anybody doesn't like it, they're fired."

Don't forget, a lot of people said we wanted to run the government like a business.
 
Terrell said:
If he were to actually follow through with it, which I doubt, I'd be against it as well due to the lack of due process. Then again I'm opposed to taking people's firearms away on an accusation. Show me at least clear & convincing evidence of mental instability, while giving the defendant the same rights he'd have in a criminal trial, or proof of guilt of a violent felony beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Yup. How do you take the guns from the dangerous ones without a proper procedure to figure out who the dangerous ones are? It's not like the government is all-knowing. Just look at the terrorist watch lists--utterly riddled with errors. The system is basically guilty until proven innocent, and sometimes not even then. They don't want to be accused of another 9/11 (being asleep at the helm) and thus throw everything at it.

For example, buying your air tickets with cash likely gets you an extra security check at the airport--but last minute tickets with cash is a drug smuggler thing, not a terrorist thing. The guy who buys a last minute ticket with cash is very unlikely to be a threat to the plane--terrorists have plans that involve not sticking out! (Note--competent behavior detection is another matter. While the profile of the terrorist won't stand out their behavior might. That's how El-Al "caught" the shoe bomber. (He flew, but next to an air marshal. It was a test run only anyway so he did nothing illegal and didn't get arrested.) What the TSA has done in behavior detection is not competent, though.)

I'm for disarming the crazies--but first, I want good evidence they are crazy.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Yup. How do you take the guns from the dangerous ones without a proper procedure to figure out who the dangerous ones are? It's not like the government is all-knowing.
Click to expand...

Never fear - Teh Dotard is all-knowing! He can tell good people from bad people instantly. That's why he has the BEST people.
 
Elixir said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Yup. How do you take the guns from the dangerous ones without a proper procedure to figure out who the dangerous ones are? It's not like the government is all-knowing.
Click to expand...

Never fear - Teh Dotard is all-knowing! He can tell good people from bad people instantly. That's why he has the BEST people.
Click to expand...
Yep, the BEST of the BEST. He'll probably put Jarey and Jeffey right on it...
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
So people here admire the goal but detest the method?

Which means they admire the goal?
Click to expand...
No., That is not what it means.

We would want a decrease in gun proliferation.
Unconstitutional gun grabbing will just feed into the siege mentality of those gun enthusiasts who have been just WAITING to resist the governmental gun-grab. That'll increase the shit out of gun stockpiling, while driving down gun registration. Meaning that we don't admire the goal he's aiming towards...
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Which means they admire the goal?
Click to expand...

You mean the expressed goal, or the actual goal?
Let's be clear on the difference, so you can ask again;

* Expressed goal: Decrease the frequency and average body count from active shooters
* Actual goal: Push Russia stories onto the second page.

So... which one are you asking about?
 
Elixir said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Which means they admire the goal?
Click to expand...

You mean the expressed goal, or the actual goal?
Let's be clear on the difference, so you can ask again;

* Expressed goal: Decrease the frequency and average body count from active shooters
* Actual goal: Push Russia stories onto the second page.

So... which one are you asking about?
Click to expand...


expressed goal: reducing the number of firearms in the civilian population.
actual goal: reducing the number of firearms in the civilian population.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
expressed goal: reducing the number of firearms in the civilian population.
actual goal: reducing the number of firearms in the civilian population.
Click to expand...

Lol!
...and some wonder why they are called Trumpsuckers!

FWIW, I don't care about the phantom "goal" you describe, one way or another. If everyone stopped manufacturing all guns yesterday, there would be enough guns in circulation to keep every recreational, professional and criminal shooter in the country well-supplied for a century or more. And I'm not in favor of rounding them all up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom