[Helicondelta]

If a guy is threatening to shoot up a school he should be disarmed. I don’t see what’s so controversial about this.

[WayneS]

Yes. The threat in and of itself is a crime.

[SkyDancer]

Then why wasn’t he? How many chances were there for the authorities to have done that?

[Leaning Right]

> 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.)

[KSCITYBOY]

YUP

[SecAmndmt]

Yeah, but during a divorce, soon-to-be ex-wives will say *anything* to get at their soon-to-be ex-husbands. Accusations of violent threats, child abuse and the like. Do these men deserve no due process before having guns taken? This is NOT a federal issue for sure.

[ilovesarah2012]

You would think.

[itsahoot]

If a guy is threatening to shoot up a school he should be disarmed. I don’t see what’s so controversial about this.

Not a thing, it is how Trump stated it that is the problem.