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

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Just the impossibility of trying to get Trump opponents to state on record their opinion.

Instead of "I agree/disagree with the goal proposal as stated" I get "but the means" and "surely he has an ulterior motive."

Knowing how intelligent you think he is, do you really think he's got a multi-layered motive scheme in play?

Okay Jason, here's a stance I HOPE you can understand:
I do NOT condone any exercise in removing guns from civilian hands for the purpose of diminishing the number of firearms in circulation.

Does that answer your question?
Please don't try to infer that I am "pro gun", or not opposed to allowing high-velocity semi-automatic weapons to be readily available.

Yes, you alone answered the question.

 

[Malintent]

There are very few "firearms" in circulation... black powder, muzzle-loaded musket ball firing weapons only recently have come back in popularity as novelty arms.

Uh ...

 Firearm

I hope you don't mean that literally. There is a reason why gun rights advocates view gun control nuts as uninformed about firearms.

Perhaps you could show me where any of the founding fathers are sourced on that wiki page, which was written and is maintained by the NRA (specifically, the Association for Firearms Instructors)?

I own 5 guns... 1 hunting rifle, 2 paper killers (.22's), and two shotguns. I am an avid trap shooter, recently got into sporting clays... with the rifle, I am a Marksman first class since the late 70's. I don't know what your background is, but based on your purported location, it is likely I have far more experience with "guns" than you. (but possibly not, I admit).

do you have a source from the authors of the 2nd amendment that defines "firearms", rather than a source from a lobbyist organization that has everything to gain or lose on that proposition?

 

[Malintent]

LOL!!

I just saw on Amazon that the Association of Firearms Instructors sells their "Glossary of terms" manual for (get this) $0.00. Yup... Free from Amazon. You know what other publications are free? Propaganda.. The Watchtower... and "how to make money at <fill in the blank> without even trying".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There are very few "firearms" in circulation... black powder, muzzle-loaded musket ball firing weapons only recently have come back in popularity as novelty arms.

Uh ...

 Firearm

I hope you don't mean that literally. There is a reason why gun rights advocates view gun control nuts as uninformed about firearms.

Perhaps you could show me where any of the founding fathers are sourced on that wiki page, which was written and is maintained by the NRA (specifically, the Association for Firearms Instructors)?

I own 5 guns... 1 hunting rifle, 2 paper killers (.22's), and two shotguns. I am an avid trap shooter...

Why would anyone want to shot a trap? They aren't moving and they must be really dangerous to stuff and hang on the wall.

recently got into sporting clays...

I prefer silts or peat.

I am a Marksman first class since the late 70's. I don't know what your background is, but based on your purported location, it is likely I have far more experience with "guns" than you. (but possibly not, I admit).

Jason is a true Libertarian. He doesn't need to own a gun, to be willing to die of someone else's right to have it though.

 

[Malintent]

I know you're joking around, Jimmy... you a funny guy.

I'm gonna deadpan it, though, just for the opportunity to maybe spark interest in someone who may enjoy...

Sporting Clays is a kind of skeet (or trap) shooting that involves walking from one area to another, where each area has a trap thrower setup in a particular way that emulates how certain animals move. It is most of what is fun about hunting, with no killing. Think golf with guns. The place I go has the sporting clays setup throughout a wooded area.. it is a nice walk through the woods (or ride on a golf cart) with 10 or so stations off the trail here and there. One station might have a 'rabbit', where the clay is thrown such that it skips across the ground. another area has 'popups' where the clays basically go straight up in the air, usually from behind a tree, so you really only get a couple of seconds on target as it pops up over the tree.

Another great game is wobble trap. "Traps", by the way, are what you call the machines that throw the clay discs ("clays"). In wobble Trap, it is just like standard skeet shooting (which is an Olympic sport, by the way) in terms of the rules of the game, but the "wobble" is that the clays are launched at random trajectories. It takes much more skill than regular skeet / trap. Big fun. I suck, but I really enjoy it. Shooting birdshot at moving targets is very different than shooting a round out of a rifle though a piece of paper.... besides the totally different mechanics of aiming, paper doesn't go "SMASH!" in a puff of dust when you get a good shot, which is very satisfying to nail.

I've been shooting rifles all my life.... shotguns are fairly new to me... only been a few years, but my game has gotten a little better than terrible.

 

[Elixir]

I know you're joking around, Jimmy... you a funny guy.

I'm gonna deadpan it, though, just for the opportunity to maybe spark interest in someone who may enjoy...

Sporting Clays is a kind of skeet (or trap) shooting that involves walking from one area to another, where each area has a trap thrower setup in a particular way that emulates how certain animals move. It is most of what is fun about hunting, with no killing. Think golf with guns. The place I go has the sporting clays setup throughout a wooded area.. it is a nice walk through the woods (or ride on a golf cart) with 10 or so stations off the trail here and there. One station might have a 'rabbit', where the clay is thrown such that it skips across the ground. another area has 'popups' where the clays basically go straight up in the air, usually from behind a tree, so you really only get a couple of seconds on target as it pops up over the tree.

Another great game is wobble trap. "Traps", by the way, are what you call the machines that throw the clay discs ("clays"). In wobble Trap, it is just like standard skeet shooting (which is an Olympic sport, by the way) in terms of the rules of the game, but the "wobble" is that the clays are launched at random trajectories. It takes much more skill than regular skeet / trap. Big fun. I suck, but I really enjoy it. Shooting birdshot at moving targets is very different than shooting a round out of a rifle though a piece of paper.... besides the totally different mechanics of aiming, paper doesn't go "SMASH!" in a puff of dust when you get a good shot, which is very satisfying to nail.

I've been shooting rifles all my life.... shotguns are fairly new to me... only been a few years, but my game has gotten a little better than terrible.

Do you "sight" with both eyes? That's the only way I've ever hit a skeet/clay pigeon.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

By this same logic, your Libertarian partisanship is showing. You regularly oppose Dems and Republicans. Just because Underseer agrees with you that due process is a good thing, you still can't agree with him. Jason Harvestdancer, it seems, is annoyed that Underseer is not siding with Jason Harvestdancer and Trump on this.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So people here admire the goal but detest the method?

Which means they admire the goal?

Wow! Still at it?

Who was it that said that conservatives/Libertarians can't see nuance? Was it Jimmy Higgins? Well, Jimmy or whoever said it, you're right about this one anyway...

I don't think the vast majority of the people you are writing to want to grab everyone's guns even with due process. The vast majority are looking for sensible legislation regarding crazy types of guns and/or crazy types of people.

 

[Malintent]

I know you're joking around, Jimmy... you a funny guy.

I'm gonna deadpan it, though, just for the opportunity to maybe spark interest in someone who may enjoy...

Sporting Clays is a kind of skeet (or trap) shooting that involves walking from one area to another, where each area has a trap thrower setup in a particular way that emulates how certain animals move. It is most of what is fun about hunting, with no killing. Think golf with guns. The place I go has the sporting clays setup throughout a wooded area.. it is a nice walk through the woods (or ride on a golf cart) with 10 or so stations off the trail here and there. One station might have a 'rabbit', where the clay is thrown such that it skips across the ground. another area has 'popups' where the clays basically go straight up in the air, usually from behind a tree, so you really only get a couple of seconds on target as it pops up over the tree.

Another great game is wobble trap. "Traps", by the way, are what you call the machines that throw the clay discs ("clays"). In wobble Trap, it is just like standard skeet shooting (which is an Olympic sport, by the way) in terms of the rules of the game, but the "wobble" is that the clays are launched at random trajectories. It takes much more skill than regular skeet / trap. Big fun. I suck, but I really enjoy it. Shooting birdshot at moving targets is very different than shooting a round out of a rifle though a piece of paper.... besides the totally different mechanics of aiming, paper doesn't go "SMASH!" in a puff of dust when you get a good shot, which is very satisfying to nail.

I've been shooting rifles all my life.... shotguns are fairly new to me... only been a few years, but my game has gotten a little better than terrible.

Do you "sight" with both eyes? That's the only way I've ever hit a skeet/clay pigeon.

you use your eyes? I need to try that sometime.

ya, both eyes... need the peripheral vision to work out the flight path and lead. Approaching it like a stationary target with a rifle that has a rear site will get you missing the clay a couple of feet behind it... at least for me.

 

[Malintent]

So people here admire the goal but detest the method?

Which means they admire the goal?

Wow! Still at it?

Who was it that said that conservatives/Libertarians can't see nuance? Was it Jimmy Higgins? Well, Jimmy or whoever said it, you're right about this one anyway...

I don't think the vast majority of the people you are writing to want to grab everyone's guns even with due process. The vast majority are looking for sensible legislation regarding crazy types of guns and/or crazy types of people.

"a WELL REGULATED militia..." - Second Amendment.

As the definition of firearms expands into the unimaginably ludicrous, so must the regulations.

you want one of those musket ball firing things that you can hide in your pocket? Then regulations regarding registering such "hidden firearms" might be appropriate....
You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.


Another thought.... not original. Chris Rock, I believe, joked about it. Make the price of a bullet $5,000. Only people who REALLY deserve it will ever get shot.

But on that note, the government has been getting away with taxing things to deter use... like cigarettes and alcohol.... Interestingly, we already have those products grouped together... the ATF. Put a tax on guns just like the tax on everything else the ATF regulates.

Want a bolt action hunting rifle... $10 tax.
Want a AR-15 in full auto... $1,000,000 tax. Have as many as you want.. .carry them wherever you want. Although I suspect someone with a hunting rifle they paid a few extra dollars for may want to take that assault weapon from you with a sucker shot to the back of your head.. easy $1,000,000... so maybe keep it safe in a museum or something.

Want steel buckshot to hunt Elk? $10 a box.
Want full metal jacket armor piercing .50 rounds? that'll be $5,000 each, after taxes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So people here admire the goal but detest the method?

Which means they admire the goal?

Wow! Still at it?

Who was it that said that conservatives/Libertarians can't see nuance? Was it Jimmy Higgins? Well, Jimmy or whoever said it, you're right about this one anyway...

I don't think the vast majority of the people you are writing to want to grab everyone's guns even with due process. The vast majority are looking for sensible legislation regarding crazy types of guns and/or crazy types of people.

"a WELL REGULATED militia..." - Second Amendment.

As the definition of firearms expands into the unimaginably ludicrous, so must the regulations.

you want one of those musket ball firing things that you can hide in your pocket? Then regulations regarding registering such "hidden firearms" might be appropriate....
You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.


Another thought.... not original. Chris Rock, I believe, joked about it. Make the price of a bullet $5,000. Only people who REALLY deserve it will ever get shot.

But on that note, the government has been getting away with taxing things to deter use... like cigarettes and alcohol.... Interestingly, we already have those products grouped together... the ATF. Put a tax on guns just like the tax on everything else the ATF regulates.

Want a bolt action hunting rifle... $10 tax.
Want a AR-15 in full auto... $1,000,000 tax. Have as many as you want.. .carry them wherever you want. Although I suspect someone with a hunting rifle they paid a few extra dollars for may want to take that assault weapon from you with a sucker shot to the back of your head.. easy $1,000,000... so maybe keep it safe in a museum or something.

Want steel buckshot to hunt Elk? $10 a box.
Want full metal jacket armor piercing .50 rounds? that'll be $5,000 each, after taxes.

Interesting, tax (%) to be equal to the (theoretical maximum number of bullets that could be fired in 60 seconds - 8) * 10. AR-15 is 45, so (45-8)*10 = 370%. So $500 gun goes for about $2200.

Full auto (900 - 8) * 10 = 893%, nearing $10,000 at this point.

And to make it worse, the tax goes to pay for aid to gay homeless blacks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, but Jason wants you to ignore the man behind the curtain. He wants you to agree only with what comes out of one side of his mouth. Jason won't even admit that the pretense is to mitigate the damage done by active shooters in schools. He represents that Trump is ONLY expressing and endorsing means to "reduce the number of firearms in the civilian population", and no mention of any pretense about making/keeping schools safe. That, even though Cheato is obviously pandering to people who are concerned about school safety, not the number of guns owned by civilians.

So you won't address whether or not you share the obvious glee of Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) at Trump's attempts to diminish the number of firearms in circulation?

I never thought I'd say this, but Feinstein is more honest than a lot of those who agree with her.

There are very few "firearms" in circulation... black powder, muzzle-loaded musket ball firing weapons only recently have come back in popularity as novelty arms. A enthusiastic family member of mine likes them for the fun of the process just to fire one round... which an expert can do every 30 seconds or so.

Semi-automatic weapons are not firearms. They are military-grade machines of mass destruction. We call them "guns". The second amendment protects possession of "firearms" for state-appointed militia. So, if you are a member of the militia (aka the police force), the state has the right to allow you to carry a "firearm". The feds cannot impinge on the rights of the state to form a police force, independent of the feds.

There is no problem with firearms. There is a huge problem with the proliferation of military-grade weapons of mass-destruction that erroneously have been covered by the 2nd amendment.

The weapons protected by the 2nd were the military-grade weapons of the time.

And your definition of "firearm" does not match common usage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As the definition of firearms expands into the unimaginably ludicrous, so must the regulations.

As new items are invented they fall under the label of similar items that already exist.

You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.

You realize black powder cannons are basically unregulated? The Mythbusters made their own in California.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

By this same logic, your Libertarian partisanship is showing. You regularly oppose Dems and Republicans. Just because Underseer agrees with you that due process is a good thing, you still can't agree with him. Jason Harvestdancer, it seems, is annoyed that Underseer is not siding with Jason Harvestdancer and Trump on this.

Underseer, as a regular Republican, is not objecting to the due process part but to "they're taking mah guns" part. I'm opposed to Trump on both the due process point AND the attack on gun ownership part.

The point of my comments is that, unlike the Republican Underseer, most people in this forum are not friendly to firearm ownership, so therefore should agree with Trump on the attack on gun ownership part.

Two points: due process, gun ownership. I object to Trump's action on both points. Underseer, the Republican, objects to Trump on the second part. Most of this forum objects to Trump on the first part. I'm trying to get them to comment on the second part as well. So far only Elixir has had the balls to address the second part, unless you also count the Republican Underseer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

By this same logic, your Libertarian partisanship is showing. You regularly oppose Dems and Republicans. Just because Underseer agrees with you that due process is a good thing, you still can't agree with him. Jason Harvestdancer, it seems, is annoyed that Underseer is not siding with Jason Harvestdancer and Trump on this.

Underseer, as a regular Republican, is not objecting to the due process part but to "they're taking mah guns" part. I'm opposed to Trump on both the due process point AND the attack on gun ownership part.

The point of my comments is that, unlike the Republican Underseer, most people in this forum are not friendly to firearm ownership, so therefore should agree with Trump on the attack on gun ownership part.

Two points: due process, gun ownership. I object to Trump's action on both points. Underseer, the Republican, objects to Trump on the second part. Most of this forum objects to Trump on the first part. I'm trying to get them to comment on the second part as well. So far only Elixir has had the balls to address the second part, unless you also count the Republican Underseer.

First part, due process is a big fucking deal. In fact, much bigger to the left than the right. Second, the 2nd amendment isn't a blank check.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

By this same logic, your Libertarian partisanship is showing. You regularly oppose Dems and Republicans. Just because Underseer agrees with you that due process is a good thing, you still can't agree with him. Jason Harvestdancer, it seems, is annoyed that Underseer is not siding with Jason Harvestdancer and Trump on this.

Underseer, as a regular Republican, is not objecting to the due process part but to "they're taking mah guns" part. I'm opposed to Trump on both the due process point AND the attack on gun ownership part.

The point of my comments is that, unlike the Republican Underseer, most people in this forum are not friendly to firearm ownership, so therefore should agree with Trump on the attack on gun ownership part.

Two points: due process, gun ownership. I object to Trump's action on both points. Underseer, the Republican, objects to Trump on the second part. Most of this forum objects to Trump on the first part. I'm trying to get them to comment on the second part as well. So far only Elixir has had the balls to address the second part, unless you also count the Republican Underseer.

Let's put your political stance in context of Trump's real part#1 and part#2:

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

He's talking about crazy people. So you are against removal of AR-15's from crazy people using due process that somehow shows they are crazy. I don't know if I am against this but I probably am. At present most Americans take some kind of medication and many of these are for things like depression or anxiety. How would Trump actually try to implement this? This is just a sound byte and so I would want to know the actual concrete pieces of legislation etc and how they avoid vagueness and being too broad as well as keeping people's liberties though I may disagree with you about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Basically Trump is fake news but your posts are also pretty superficial and immature. It's hard to have a conversation with you about real life.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seattle police first in state to seize gun under mental health law

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seattle police first in state to seize gun under mental health law

Looks like they did something right. I wonder if that will deny him buying another, though.

 

[Malintent]

There are very few "firearms" in circulation... black powder, muzzle-loaded musket ball firing weapons only recently have come back in popularity as novelty arms. A enthusiastic family member of mine likes them for the fun of the process just to fire one round... which an expert can do every 30 seconds or so.

Semi-automatic weapons are not firearms. They are military-grade machines of mass destruction. We call them "guns". The second amendment protects possession of "firearms" for state-appointed militia. So, if you are a member of the militia (aka the police force), the state has the right to allow you to carry a "firearm". The feds cannot impinge on the rights of the state to form a police force, independent of the feds.

There is no problem with firearms. There is a huge problem with the proliferation of military-grade weapons of mass-destruction that erroneously have been covered by the 2nd amendment.

The weapons protected by the 2nd were the military-grade weapons of the time.

And your definition of "firearm" does not match common usage.

It is the basis of my thesis that it is the very definition itself that is suspect.

And the "military weapons of the time" were cannons, not flint-lock muskets.

 

[Malintent]

As the definition of firearms expands into the unimaginably ludicrous, so must the regulations.

As new items are invented they fall under the label of similar items that already exist.

An AR-15 is not remotely similar to what had been called a firearm... unless you are also arguing that "crack cocaine" is just as similar to "sugar", and should be regulated identically.

As evolutionary history progresses, small changes add up to speciation. According to your claim, bacteria and humans are precisely the same thing.

You want one of those cannon ball firing things that can kill 100 people in less than 30 seconds? Then regulations regarding where such a machine can be used might be appropriate... that is what REGULATING WELL means.

You realize black powder cannons are basically unregulated? The Mythbusters made their own in California.

This is only partially true. black powder itself is regulated. for example, it is illegal to store more than 40 lbs of it at a time, unless you are a firearms dealer... and even then, there are limits to inventory you may maintain.