Posted on 02/21/2018 6:13:21 AM PST by Simon Green
“White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also told reporters that Trump hasn’t ‘closed the door’ on a potential ban of assault-style weapons and ‘hasn’t yet determined’ whether there should be a federal age limit for purchasing semi-automatic rifles.” – Other gun bans besides ‘bump stocks’? [via seekingalpha.com]
I should have said less likely. It is an actuarial thing.
“TRUMP is not going to ban Assault Weapons!!!”
Agreed.
Your email to White House was VERY WELL written, perhaps you could write another telling them to start looking into the mood altering pharmaceuticals EVERY ONE of these shooters have in common!!! It’s NOT the guns!!!!!!
Talk like this really irritates me in that it buys into the logic that an item is responsible for any resulting behavior using that item. I’ve posted it before and I’ll say it again, you can create more carnage and terror with a gallon of gas in a crowded facility than a gun can create. Are we to place age limits for the purchase of gasoline or the number of gallons you can purchase? Will you nerd a permit to purchase or have to endure a waiting period to fill your lawnmower? Is gasoline availability causing bad behavior? Portray such attacks in movies or video games and my guess is that it would become a weapon of choice. My take: It’s the individual and culture, not the object used.
“Assuming potus knows the real definition of assault rifle, he could really scam these people. Any weapon with a fully automatic capability”
WRT full auto firearms, I find it unconscionable that those we hire - the police and the standing armed forces - are able to purchase and possess these arms, but they are effectively prohibited to the average citizen. First, of course, the 1934 NFA requires that an application process be passed and that a $200 tax be paid for the privilege (not right, mind you - no one has to get permission to exercise a RIGHT) of being able to purchase and own one of these. Then the 1986 FOPA made cut off the supply of new full autos to the civilian market COMPLETELY, which had the very predictable (and intended) result of causing the price of the existing stock of full autos to skyrocket. Now it is prohibitively expensive to be armed as well as our hired servants...a concept that is surely adding to the rotational velocity of the Founding Generation in their graves. This unconstitutional farce MUST be reversed - at least to the point of getting rid of the 1986 prohibition on new full autos. Ironically, the federal government argued in the 1939 “U.S. v. Miller” case that the 1934 NFA was constitutional because it was a measure designed to increase tax revenues (by way of the $200 tax stamp), but the 1986 law PROHIBITS the raising of more such revenue. The “logic” of that one is enough to spin the heads of the world’s greatest philosophers and legal minds.
He had better.
“I should have said less likely. It is an actuarial thing.”
A right is a right is a right - across all geographical boundaries, across all time periods and across all segments of the adult population.
My grandfathers COULD have bought full autos without any background check, without CLEO sign-off and without any $200 tax stamp - over the counter in their local Sears or other hardware store...so why can’t I? BTW, neither did, damn it!
” I’ve posted it before and I’ll say it again, you can create more carnage and terror with a gallon of gas in a crowded facility than a gun can create.”
Exactly. 87 people were murdered this way in 1990 in NYC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire
I’m sure that the gun-grabbing Leftists were congratulating themselves that the nutcase in that incident didn’t use a gun...as if that made any difference to the victims or their families.
Is the right absolutely absolute? Or can there be Constitutional limitations? I’m not up on all the Supreme Court precedents but I remember something about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
If you intend, President Trump, to retire in 2018, having been impeached and convicted — because Democrats would sweep the House and the Senate (since your supporters would sit home) — then please, by all means, support a major gun ban.
Thanks for your complement.
I personally think that President Trump will do on this issue what he has done with immigration - discuss what the other side has long wanted, but utterly refuse to support (and threaten a veto over) such legislation if it doesn’t ALSO include a lot of things that our side wants as part of the bargain. Oh, and he KNOWS that the other side will never agree to such a bargain, as it would infuriate the hard-core Left, and also take an issue away from the Dems/Leftists.
That sounds like she has no idea what Trump’s position is and is just deflecting the questions.
If this is actually Trump floating a trial balloon on an assault weapons ban, then we need to make it clear that this is a nonstarter.
LOL! It’s a tactic. He throws a leather boot into the river, then waits to see how many crocodiles show up.
He's already directed the Department of Justice to propose regulations that would ban bump stocks,
He better close that door. Personally I think Trump is signing the bump stock memo as the absolute least thing he can do to avoid being fried by the left.
“Hope you folks know the POTUS’s sons have shot NRA Hi Power since they were teens. POTUS is a Benefactor I believe, and has been a supporter of NRA goals.”
Unfortunately, George Horseshit Worthless Bush was a life member of the NRA when he banned “assault rifle” importation and gave us the horrific gun free school zones 1000 footer.
“Is the right absolutely absolute? Or can there be Constitutional limitations? I’m not up on all the Supreme Court precedents but I remember something about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.”
2) None of what I wrote above has stopped Congress or the states from passing tens of thousands of laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms, nor has it prevented the courts on all levels from upholding such laws. The “Heller” and “McDonald” decisions have restored some of our rights, but there is a LONG way to go to get us back to the state of affairs before the 1934 NFA.
3) WRT yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater...this is a very overused and misunderstood analogy. First of all, you are, in fact, allowed to be in a crowded theater and yell, “Fire!” if that tickles your fancy. There is no “prior restraint” of that right permitted (and, to make the prior restraint applied against gun owners equivalent in the crowded theater scenario, you’d have to cut the vocal cords, or remove the tongues of, or at least duct tape the mouths of, all theater patrons). What this over-used and misunderstood phrase means is that you can be punished for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater if there was, in fact, no fire, and if someone else was injured or killed as a result of the panic that you knowingly caused by your utterance. Again, no prior restraint on free speech is involved - as it most definitely is in the firearms context where mere ownership or possession of certain arms is prohibited even if you have never committed any crime whatsoever.
BTW, other over-used canards are that “the militia is the National Guard” or “the Founders never knew about machine guns, so they aren’t protected” or “only firearms that can be carried by a single person are protected” (i.e. no crew-served weapons, no howitzers, etc.). Those are ALL false.
1) The militia is NOT the National Guard. In the 1990 case of Perpich v. Department of Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpich_v._Department_of_Defense, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is NOT the militia, and that it is subject to federalization without the permission of the governor of whatever state said National Guard unit is from.
2) The Founders DID know about full auto weapons. See this post (specifically, the answer provided by Sean Sanders): https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed Specifically, the Founders knew about the Puckle gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun and the Belton carbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock (which was introduced to the Continental Congress, but not purchased due to the cost). Additionally, the Girandoni air rifle was a semi-automatic with a 20-round magazine, and was carried across the country (and used) by the Lewis and Clark expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
3) Crew-served weapons - specifically cannon - were known to be owned by numerous private (and wealthy, to be sure) citizens. The fact that among the powers of the Congress listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” It is that “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” part that is relevant here - it essentially means that the Congress can allow private citizens to act in the stead of the armed forces, including the use of their own private arms. MANY such Letters were granted during the Revolutionary period by the Continental Congress, and by the Congress at least through the War of 1812. So, privately-owned ships could take on, for example, British warships in the War of 1812 under this provision...but pray tell, HOW does one do that if you aren’t armed with equivalent weapons? The Founders were no dopes, they understood QUITE well that these people owned crew-served cannon before the Letters were granted, and would own them afterwards if their actions were successful. Here is more on the Letters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_Marque_and_Reprisal
Bottom line: the 2nd Amendment is a LOT more absolute, and a LOT more comprehensive, than even most hard-core 2nd Amendment advocates know or understand.
“You might be surprised wha the NRA agrees with. “
If memory serves the NRA capitulated to the Hughes Amendment in return for the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986. A lot of good that has done a lot of hapless people in NY, NJ, MA etc.
I haven’t closed the door on staying home in 2018 and allowing the Democrats to make you the first president removed from office, Mr. Trump.
If you attack those of us who did nothing, you will be on your own.
I have closed the door. And locked it.
Break it down if you dare.
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.