Posted on 03/01/2018 6:45:16 AM PST by dynoman
Watch the video before commenting on any media lies and interpretations of what Trump said. We owe it to ourselves and Trump to do at least that.
I've read so many comments here where people actually believed what the media said Trump said. It's pretty sad those commenters don't take the time to vet the media's lies and misinterpretations.
“Fact check this: If a new law says police can temporarily seize a citizen’s weapon when a clear and immediate danger is identified, that BECOMES due process.”
What new law? Has it been upheld by SCOTUS?
Taking away one’s weapons in a field stop when there was probable cause to do so is far different from a cop deciding someone is dangerous and going to that person’s house to take away his guns, and was not what Trump was referring to.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Mr. President, what do we do about weapons of war, easily accessible on our streets?
THE PRESIDENT: What you’re going to have to do is discuss it with everybody. (Laughter.) And any solution — no it’s a very complex solution. You do.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: You have weapons on the street. That’s what we were talking about with black market. These are black market weapons. You know, the problem, Dianne, is that these aren’t where you walk into a store and buy. These are where somebody hands you a gun and you hand them some money.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Oh, no, you go into a store and you can buy an AR-15.
THE PRESIDENT: You can.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: You can buy a TEC-9. I mean you can buy all these weapons.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is what you’re going to have to discuss, Joe —
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Light triggers, many bullets —
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Joe and Pat, you’re going to have to discuss that. You’ll sit down with Dianne, and everybody else and you’ll come up with up something.
And I think it — I really believe it has to be very strong. I’d rather have you come down on the strong side instead of the weak side. The weak side would be much easier. I’d rather have you come up with a strong, strong bill. And really strong on background checks.
With that, I just — we’ll end it, but I just want to thank everybody. I really believe we’re going to — we’re on the road to something terrific. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much.
“I’ll wait for the actions before judging them. Trump has played Schumer and Pelosi before - there’s no reason to get upset until there’s something to be upset about.”
Exactly.
With all due respect to Mr. Adams, I don’t believe his point is valid here. “Due process”, as the phrase is commonly used, refers to our constitutional right to a jury trial before any punishment or punitive action (such as the seizure of a weapon), barring immediate danger of course.
The point is it can’t be a nebulous, vague term like “crazy” or “insane” that can deprive someone of their right to bear arms without due process first. That’s constitutional not a “legal” matter per se. Mr Adams is conflating law with constitutional rights in other words; if it were as easy a solution as he proposes, then why can’t a leftist President/Congress say, “If a new law says the police can arrest someone for being discriminatory in their hiring practices FIRST, and then have a trial to determine if they really are a bigot, then that becomes ‘due process’”.
No it doesn’t because such a law would be unconstitutional because it would violate the first and fourth amendments. The same applies to Mr. Adams’ formulation. It violates the fourth, and thus would be an unconstitutional law by definition, not “due process” but the exact opposite of due process.
With that said you’re right of course the media always likes to try to twist Trump’s words to suit many agendas so perhaps there is a way to see his recent comments in a favorable light. If I have time I’ll watch the video you provide. If not, I’ll take the wise approach you and others suggest which is to watch and wait to see if this is a pattern for Trump or some isolated media spin.
But as I see it now, it’s pretty hard to see how comments like “take guns first, then have due process” or “you can’t be petrified of the NRA” (as if the conservatives in Congress should not be beholden to the NRA on matters of gun control) could be mollified by a study of the context in which they were presented. They pretty much stand on their own.
See post 75.
Trump wants to arm teachers. This doesn’t sound like a gun-control position.
I’d say he kind of blew her off. Especially since she called them “weapons of war”.
The best exchange with Trump and Feinstein was when he dissed Obama “that was the problem then” and Feinstein smiled. She knew Obama’s support killed it. 14:40 in the video.
I thought the discussion about the buyers permit through and FFL was interesting because it would be a way for law enforcement to crack down on the black market.
Exactly! and yet posters like sickoflibs says this kind of crap; “You and Trump will gain no votes from betraying the 2nd Amendment and attacking the NRA.”
What’s the old phrase, something like “sad cases make bad case law”, I paraphrase of course. But the sentiment applies here.
We can’t take the evil on display, the incompetence of the Broward County Sheriff, and FBI, and make a law reacting to the emotions surrounding same, or else we are headed down a dangerous road that veers to the left. Way left.
We can’t let crying kids and leftists (but I repeat myself) dictate both the tone and direction of such a discussion. Adult thinking needs to prevail, or else what exactly does conservatism stand for?
“I thought the discussion about the buyers permit through and FFL was interesting because it would be a way for law enforcement to crack down on the black market.”
I don’t have a problem running private sales through an FFL. It is common here in Illinois to do that via consignment.
Are you Russian bots?
Trump: “Think of it. You can buy a handgun ... you have to wait till you're 21,” he said. “But you can buy the kind of weapon used in the school shooting at 18. I think it's something you have to think about.”
Trump said lawmakers have been afraid to raise the age limit because of opposition from the National Rifle Association, but he said it needs to be considered anyway.
Trump pressures lawmakers to raise minimum age for rifles to 21 (by Pete Kasperowicz | Feb 28, 2018)
I counter with Trump’s practical rants about arming teachers. Why would a gun grabber advocate that?
THINK!!
ok, thx.
CAUSE CRUZ WAS NEVER ARRESTED for d/v or anything else.
Thats why we’re digging in our heels on any “infringements” or the Pres. calling out the NRA.
Because It wasn’t about the gun, the NRA or Cruz’ age. It was about that jackass Sheriff and the school district taking millions in our tax money funneled via Obama/Holder in “diversion” grants. NOT ARRESTING CRIMINALS and thus keeping them out of the NICS registry.
“What laws would have stopped it”
The kid could have been arrested for violence at home and at school DOZENS of times, many of them before he bought the rifle, and some for firearms violations after
Most before would have DQ’d him from buying.
Any after combined with the school shooting threats and tips would have been enough to Baker Act him and take his firearms.
I think Trump’s got all that figured out. Watch what happens.
You CAN’T win, President Trump and DemocRATS. If you dare to strike it down, the NRA shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
4 Reasons ‘Universal Background Checks’ for Gun Buyers Are a Bad Idea
https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar
And another good explanation.
Why I oppose background checks:
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/why-i-oppose-background-checks.htm
Here is the written transcript. Lengthy, but cleared up many things for me about what is being reported.
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.