Posted on 02/23/2018 6:40:51 AM PST by davikkm
President Trump tweeted on Thursday morning that the Congress should basically create a national gun registry, as he proposed something along the lines of “comprehensive background checks”, whatever that means. Here’s the tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384
The thing is, this tweet can be interpreted in 2 ways. If you’re a leftist, you may argue that President Trump finally caved on gun control, and in the aftermath of the Florida high-school shooting he’s asking Congress to create a national gun registry and universal background check legislation, a measure pushed and lauded by the anti 2nd amendment left for years. It’s interesting that not even dear leader Barry Obama did not dare pass such a law, when the Democrats had total control over the US government, and it would be very weird for the Donald to do such a thing, that would alienate his fan base for ever, making him a one-term president. In case you’re not getting the part with the national gun registry, you should know that universal background checks cannot work sans a national gun registry. And following gun registration requirements, there’s just one small step to make, which inevitably leads to gun confiscation. The example is California, where universal background checks were followed immediately by registration requirements and then by gun confiscation legislation. Check out this tweet from the NRA about the gun-registry issue:
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
Totally agree, the “background check” just didn’t work. By “better” I meant maybe getting it to work. And Broward County will have to change their S T U P I D policy of not reporting these problems so they can receive federal money. Libs are CAUSING this problem, it’s amazing.
Yeah it will make or break him. He can create a registry that doesn’t mean people are going to register their weapons. This issue is a deal breaker for me. Tread carefully Mr. Trump or you are headed into GHWBUSH territory. He thought he could shoot the bird to gun owners and the NRA and he got sent home after one term.
Looks like Trump has been winning to me.
Thanks for the shout out. I will stand by my posts and let the FBI see my internet activities, and yes, I did hold a TS clearance while employed. And yes, I have purchased firearms and gone though the background check as it exists today. Is it good enough?
If you want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz after seeing his posts, go for it. I am for the 2A but it is not a license for suicide. Either you believe there are some people who should be institutionalized or you don’t, which is it?
BTW, I don’t accept that taking steps to block someone’s purchase of a gun is going to stop an evil person from getting one. So if a person is a danger to society, then he or she should not be walking around. I am with Trump about bringing back mental health institutions. I would say a large number of homeless people should be in one. And clearly someone who wants to be a professional school shooter should be in one.
Thanks for the shout out. I will stand by my posts and let the FBI see my internet activities, and yes, I did hold a TS clearance while employed. And yes, I have purchased firearms and gone though the background check as it exists today. Is it good enough?
If you want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz after seeing his posts, go for it. I am for the 2A but it is not a license for suicide. Either you believe there are some people who should be institutionalized or you don’t, which is it?
BTW, I don’t accept that taking steps to block someone’s purchase of a gun is going to stop an evil person from getting one. So if a person is a danger to society, then he or she should not be walking around. I am with Trump about bringing back mental health institutions. I would say a large number of homeless people should be in one. And clearly someone who wants to be a professional school shooter should be in one.
As I said, I was unaware until recently that Florida restricts hand gun sale to people under 21 while allowing a rifle to be purchased after reaching age 18. I see very little benefit to society from this restriction, but if a 21 year old is more responsible (as some people obviously think) then it is a better age for rifle purchases too.
I would exempt former and current military from this age restriction. I believe if we ask someone to defend us at the potential cost of their lives, we can extend the right to own a tool for self protection.
As far as age restrictions, I would point out that insurance and car rentals are restrictive until one reaches age 25. I will leave it to these businesses as to why they don’t want younger people to use their products.
(But trust me, there is a reason.)
The other thing about age restriction is that people younger than 18 can also arguably need tools for self protection, but we understand that mature and responsible use of a firearm is related to age. It is not the same for all people so if you want to make an argument for an exception to the general rule you are welcome to do so.
All of your other examples are valid. This age restriction to me is a bit of fluff that seems to make some people happy. All I said was that I could live with an arbitrary age restriction if it had exemptions for military and any others with a valid need for a weapon for self protection. I have left hunting out of this argument because if you family hunts to sustain themselves, then that is self protection. And if hunting is for sport, I would allow that based on the region of the country.
BTW, I also do not believe that the 2A has anything to do with hunting.
I agree with all of your points.
Especially the teacher being with the targets. As I have said before, in the classroom I have imagined what I would do if an alert came over my phone about an active shooter int he building. This is not too far fetched, while on campus at San Jose State, I was notified that there was someone with a handgun in the engineering building. (Next door to my building.) It ended well as the police arrived and disarmed the guy. But in my class if I had a class full of students, I would lock the door and get them away from the line of fire from the door. But that’s it, I would not be able to do anything more and that is the situation that these teachers at Parkland found themselves in. And the diabolical use of the fire alarm, Wow, so many students look at this as an excuse to get out of the classroom.
I also have no problem with other non-certificated staff being armed with CC training and enhanced shooting skills. Our school had regular security guards, not armed but primarily there to help break up fights. They are a possible source of more defenders, as are janitors, counselors, Administrators, Etc.
Is what good enough? Do you mean the background check as it exists today or your statement of background and position? Perhaps the answer to either is “it depends”.
As far as “let the FBI see my internet activities”, I'm not so sure I'd be happy with that everything considered these days. They aren't going to find anything criminal so far as I know, but they might find some political views to disagree with. Anyway, the words I responded to didn't limit it to the FBI.
“If you want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz after seeing his posts, go for it.”
I don't want to give a weapon to someone like Cruz, but it's not just based on his posts. Actually, I only know about the one in which he said he wanted to be a professional school shooter. If that and a few posts like it were all I had to go by I'd want to know more. If it's one post: was he just having a bad day? Was he being facietious or sarcastic? Was he playing Devil's Advocate in a discussion? All the other stuff known about him makes a difference.
“I am for the 2A but it is not a license for suicide.”
Agreed.
“Either you believe there are some people who should be institutionalized or you don’t, which is it?”
Some people need to be institutionalized. Some people need killing. The question is which ones and why and can we trust the ones who set the criteria and make the decisions. People who need killing are people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and anyone who is trying to murder me or mine. The people who need to be institutionalized comprise all of those who disagrees with me. They're nuts on the face of it. (Dear FBI: That was a joke. But there are people who feel that way.)
” So if a person is a danger to society, then he or she should not be walking around.”
“Danger to society” is a matter of disagreement among the members of society. Too many seem to think that the NRA and all it's members are a danger to society. They might also think you are a danger to society since you, as admitted on the internet, purchased a firearm.
If. The rationale behind the various age limitations should be part of the discussion rather than just throwing numbers out to placate feelings.
“I would exempt former and current military from this age restriction. “
As far as I know, younger military members are under pretty close supervision when bearing arms. When not under close supervision some of them can act just as improperly as their non-military contemporaries.
“I believe if we ask someone to defend us at the potential cost of their lives, we can extend the right to own a tool for self protection.”
Which implies they don't have that right to begin with. Some would argue they already have that right.
“(But trust me, there is a reason.)”
The reasons for any of the restrictions/permissions need to be part of the discussion
“..but we understand that mature and responsible use of a firearm is related to age.”
But only related. There are other considerations, such as the degree of maturity and responsibility that have been ingrained no matter what the age.
” It is not the same for all people so if you want to make an argument for an exception to the general rule you are welcome to do so.”
I'd prefer to see arguments for a general rule especially if it has a knee jerk application.
“...I could live with...” “...I would allow...”
Under discussion is what some people consider their right and the right of others regardless of whether or not you or anyone else could live with or would allow it. If the right is to be disallowed to anyone, reasoning as to why needs to be presented.
We are pretty much in agreement, I will clarify one thing. About an interview where one’s internet activities would be reviewed with someone in the position of being able to refer your application for a firearm to someone who would give you a “due process” hearing regarding whether you were mentally stable enough to be armed. At this moment, the only thing that is checked is a national mental health registry that many states do not support and a criminal check which Cruz passed because his local police and sheriff and school never gave him a criminal record.
As I said earlier, this is a serious step because if you were judged to not be capable of having a firearm, then you were also in need of institutionalization and care. (Cruz fits this bill, lots of people with some aspect of mental health under treatment would not be so referred.) The problem here is that there are lots of people who are mentally unstable but have convinced their parents that they really are OK or convinced their school counselors that they are OK, but their fellow students and online audiences may see it very differently. In the case of Cruz, my understanding is that he posted photos of animals he had abused as well as a table full of weapons, and himself doing target practice in his backyard — which might be alright or might be in violation of local ordinances.including handguns which are not legal for him to have (at his age — and I know it is a relative thing, but happens to be Florida law.) So I believe he would have triggered a higher review — remember he did convince a “social worker” that he was not a danger to himself or others. But she (I always suspect a social worker is a she) was not likely aware of his online posts. and Yes, he also posted that he was a professional school shooter but that was not likely seen by the social worker either. The question for us is how can this review process be changed so that it is not going to crush the lawful acquisition of firearms and will still nail this guy and others with the same mind set.
‘When is the last time we had a President sat down for a listening session directly with affected people? And still, liberal maniacs don’t have one good word to say about our President.’
it’s worse than that...people were going insane that Trump was using a notecard at that listening session; really nasty stuff...
That's 50 million people in a nation of 300 million.
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.