Posted on 02/28/2018 2:10:16 PM PST by RevelationDavid
Edited on 02/28/2018 2:25:41 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
Yep, this is the opposite of due process.
If the quote is accurate, I expect DT to walk it back post haste.
Expletive deleted.
Did you get that idea from Sessions, who is big on 'civil asset forfeiture' Cops taking what they want, even without charges?
Make the 'Due Process' thing very fast if you wish... But USE IT FIRST, DAMMIT!!!"
It’s either melodrama, or he is over reacting. Again, he should keep his nose out of these kinds of issues, especially when emotions are running high. Let the hysteria subside, then take unconstitutional positions.
I think President Trump will be told by enough people around him that his words need to be “clarified.”
A reported once said Trumps supporters take him seriously but not literally, while his detractors take him literally but not seriously.
BS! His guns should have been seized according to due process—he was clearly dangerous, and precisely the kind of person whose documented behavior easily justifies the due process that should have been imposed on him.
That's a far cry from "yours tomorrow". Indeed, its apples and oranges. Every gun owner in the country should be furious that this killer had access to guns, because his behavior had already called for (at least temporary) forfeiture of such Rights—via due process...
“I think President Trump will be told by enough people around him that his words need to be “clarified.””
I doubt that...He’ll hear it loud and clear from twitter.
He could be playing a trick with the Rats, getting them to say just what you said.
Exactly.
If you’re so out of control the cops need to be called, there might be cause to remove your guns until you are cleared by a shrink.
If cops are called multiple times in a relatively short period, it’s idiotic to allow you to keep them until you are cleared.
There was more than enough. Law enforcement ignored it. He should have been incarcerated impending trial and imprisonment or impending adjudication and institutionalization. Either way, the system failed.
Holding a gun to someone's head is aggravated assault under Florida law. He should have been incarcerated.
Yep. He took the trust factor with Constitutional conservatives down about 5-10 notches with that one. This ain’t winning. This is loosing. I don’t care what context it’s in. It’s bad words no matter what.
405 days since Trump has been elected. 0 miles, 0 feet, 0 inches of new border wall built. And now Trump wants to violate the 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
> If a guy is threatening to shoot up a school he should be disarmed. I don’t see what’s so controversial about this. <
Let’s say some guy is reported to the authorities. He has threatened to shoot up a school.
Here’s the way it should work:
Step 1: Police get a warrant, then arrest the guy.
Step 2: Judge issues an order to seize his guns.
Step 3: Police search his house and seize his guns.
Trump evidently wants to skip Step #1 and Step #2.
(Both of those steps wouldn’t take much time at all.)
If true he said this, he could not be more wrong.
Arrest or commitment. Which would entail hearings. Presuming either law enforcement, school administrators or mental health practitioners raised the issue. That's due process, which the President thinks should be postponed. That's why we have laws. The problem here is that no one availed themselves of the law for the protection of the community. "Taking the guns first", who does the taking is unclear, is tyrany.
And the reason he passed the background check is because the police, the school, school board, the local government and various others had a formal agreement to not report a long list of crimes because they wanted to "break the pipeline from school to prison" and were amply rewarded for that policy by the Obama Administration. Yet, that information was not presented by Trump and is being vastly underreported as the hysterical rush to ban guns and demonize the NRA gathers steam. Trump's slap at the NRA today is going to cost him and he needs all the support possible to fend off Mueller and rabid Left.
And the reason he passed the background check is because the police, the school, school board, the local government and various others had a formal agreement to not report a long list of crimes because they wanted to "break the pipeline from school to prison" and were amply rewarded for that policy by the Obama Administration. Yet, that information was not presented by Trump and is being vastly underreported as the hysterical rush to ban guns and demonize the NRA gathers steam. Trump's slap at the NRA today is going to cost him and he needs all the support possible to fend off Mueller and rabid Left.
Yes, the reaction at first is to take away the toy from the misbehaving child. But the hard part is the realization that all Americans have certain inalienable rights, given by God and nature, not removed or limited by the desires of government or man. All else is Tyranny.
The real debate again comes down to when does a child become a responsible adult? When I came of age during the winding down of Vietnam, an adult of 18 yrs of age could:
Enter into a real estate purchase/sale and obtain a mortgage w/o a cosigner
Purchase an Auto and be responsible for a loan without a cosigner
Purchase liquor by the drink at a bar, buy liquor at a liquor store
Be drafted to serve the US military
Purchase firearms
Purchase cigarettes (and smoke them publicly)
*as a side note we could marry with permission at age 16 and as married 16 yr olds could do all of the above except drink, since a married person is seen as an adult
** we could drive w an unrestricted drivers license at 16
The one thing we could NOT do was VOTE! ( voting age was 21)
The argument that changed this was the fact that I could die for my country but could not have a decision about the ones choosing in congress and the POTUS to declare war and send me to my death! Talk about life ceasation without representation!
The debate should be if one is not going to be legal to drive, drink, smoke, or buy weapons until twenty one then let’s move every thing to include real and transportation purchases, loans, credit cards, etc to the legal adult age of twenty one. No military service until twenty one, no drafting to professional sports until twenty one, no attending college until twenty one.
These are all life changing decisions and one simply cannot be empowered to make these decisions until an adult.
Really people, the answer is adult at 18 for all things, accountable at 18 for all things. Do the crime - pay the time. Bring back the death penalty in all fifty states.
For thought:
Graduate high school by 17 yrs, year round HS does this. If 18 and not graduated then off to a boot camp residence school. No mixing of adults with HS students. Off to college, graduate by 21 ( can’t drink anyway) then into real life.
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.