Posted on 01/07/2016 7:05:18 PM PST by Olog-hai
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he would eliminate gun-free zones in schools on his first day if he's elected to the White House.
Trump was addressing a rally crowd in Burlington, Vermont, as President Barack Obama was speaking at a televised town hall on gun violence in America. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
He said gun free zones are like “bait†to the bad guys.
Text created in the FR "Reply" text editor:
He said gun free zones are like "bait" to the bad guys.
Text created in the FR text editor (the line just above this line), displayed in the Preview window, then copied from there and pasted back into the FR text editor, and finally re-Previewed look like:
He said gun free zones are like “bait†to the bad guys.
*********
The point of this whole article is a (intentional) misquote. This was all from DT’s rally in VT last night, which I listened to. He was not referring to getting rid of gun free zones on schools his first day in office, but on military bases. The basis for gun free zones on military bases are commands, military regs, etc. which the Commander in Chief can actually change unilaterally should he wish to do so.
The gun free school zones is based on Federal and state laws which of course the President can only seek to influence. However, the President, through the AG could state that they think that the Federal gun free zones law in question is unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Then the only thing congress could do is attempt to impeach. Not gonna happen.
The useful idiots of the left, including more than a few posters upthread, are missing a big point. By misquoting DT what they’ve done is bring attention to the issue and allowed DT to keep it in the news for much longer than it otherwise would be. And it forces exposure on the issue, one that our side has a good message on. So I’m fine with the misquote. I’m also fine with the usual suspects here at FR having faux apoplexy over it.
Thank you. Your clarification is much appreciated.
Says Libbylu
I am so sick of Trump trashing every one. None of us let our kids act that way. It is just childish. (and to me revealing) No way to run a country and he obviously can’t quit.
+++
Says the person who gets on every election thread and trashes Trump and “obviously just can’t quit.” You’re getting really boring and predictable, there, libbah.
Man, this guy IS good.
As was demonstrated by a thread touching on the subject, many of his believers have tired of a republic, and now prefer, at least for a little while, a dictatorship.
“Gun-free zones” are, indeed, enforced by a federal law passed by Congress, signed into law by GWH Bush. It was done the quaint, old-fashioned way, the way they used to do it before the kenyan anti-christ.
It would be exceedingly difficult to undo this law on the first day in office, other than by unconstitutional executive fiat.
The Republic was nice while it lasted.
You must not have listened very carefully.
"I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools -- you have to -- and on military bases on my first day. It gets signed my first day,"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQJMsf0FiAI
I do think gun free school zones and on military bases and recruitment centers is a very stupid idea, and I don't object to eliminating them. But I also have a problem with Trump and his supporters claiming Trump didn't say something when he actually did or then turning it into, "well that's not what he "really meant"".
Overturning prior Executive Orders? No problem.
But I do have a problem with a POTUS, any POTUS; Rat or GOPe or liberal or conservative or "conservative" overturning existing laws or creating new ones via Executive Orders. We have a Republic and a Constitution - yea, I know, it's been largely ignored for many years now but it's time we got back to it, not install yet another imperial POTUS, even if we agree with him on principle.
I listened to it. In context, I believe the punctuation should be this:
I will get rid of gun free zones on schools. You have to. And on Military bases, my first day, it gets signed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381203/posts?page=21
So much for state’s rights.
She is cute. Can she be turned from the dark side?
So the word “and” has no meaning?
Perhaps Trump learned to parse words from his friends Bill and Hillary. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.....
Suggestion: bath that thing before you try to pick it up.
And does have meaning. As in “And on Military bases, my first day, it gets signed.”
And separates the military bases from the Schools. He does not say I will get rid of gun free zones on schools and military bases. He says:
I will get rid of gun free zones on schools. You have to. And on Military bases, my first day, it gets signed.
If you listen to the video, it is pretty clear in context. He is talking about military bases. Then he adds that he will get rid of gun free zones on schools. The he says,
“And on Military bases, my first day, it gets signed.”
I admit Trump has this kind of stream of consciousness style of speaking. These are not stump speeches. There is no teleprompter. The speeches are not memorized, so the syntax is not absolutely clear.
But it is pretty clear from the context that he was primarily speaking about military bases.
Sounds great, but how you going to do it Donald?....The same way Obama does anything he wants. Just declare it, threaten to stop school funding and declare it is the will of the people. The precedents have been set.
So when Trump says, “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools — you have to” we should or should not take him at his word?
“So when Trump says, “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools — you have to†we should or should not take him at his word?”
Of course we should. He clearly wants to get rid of gun-free zones on schools, no question about it. He is probably referring to the disaster that is the Clinton pushed gun free school zone act of 1996, as I recall.
But, it seems, that from context, he is not going to get rid of gun free school zones the first day in office, because he cannot do that.
Maybe he could say that he will order U.S. Attorneys not to prosecute the law, because it is unconstitutional. He could do that.
IINM, it was Congress and H.W. Bush that enacted gun-free zones in the early 90s. Trump is still using ambiguous language, but the “first day” rhetoric makes a presumption of EO abound.
And no states have the right to usurp the First Amendment either way; the Tenth can never nullify the First.
I listened very carefully and actually relistened as this is an issue that is very important to me personally.
The context of what was said made it clear that he was talking about the part that a President could directly impact: the carry on military bases. But you already knew that.
As I noted above I don’t really mind that the leftmedia and the useful idiots at FR got it wrong: it just gives more airtime to the issue of eliminating unarmed victim zones.
Would someone please give Trump a copy of the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.