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
Exactly
I read recently that in the dozens of times they went to his house that one of the times they were dispatched to his home for the express purpose of removing his guns.
Could have been after he held a gun to his mom’s head.
Why they didn’t do it is a mystery to common sense.
Nevertheless, they had a legal right to disarm him in the past what with his record of craziness.
This sheriff’s org dropped the ball over and over again concerning this psychotic killer
You’re making my point. They are all crazy people with not just crazy people. There is a crazy person down the street. She lives with 20 cats. She poses no risk. If tomorrow she shows up at my door with a gun if I can’t get it from her then the cops should even if it means due process occurs later.
If My neighbor who is perfectly sane except when drinking shows up belligerent and drunk ditto the above. He is crazy when drunk.
RIDICULOUS! NO DUE PROCESS???? Why even have a constitution? Colin Trump! Don’t fall for this crap!
ORIGINAL POST:
YOU: Tyranny is giving a crazy person with guns due process rights
ME:
Seriously?
How is that Tyranny? Please do explain!!!
How is “crazy” defined?
What illnesses are included?
Who does the diagnosis?
Who has access to the medical records that HIPPA is supposed to protect?
YOUR RESPONSE:
If a armed person starts walking down your street or maybe up your sidewalk and based on their behavior you, based on your life’s experience and wisdom, judge the person to be crazy what will you do?
Oh I guess you will work your way through the definitions of crazy or find smeone to give a diagnosis being sure to protect their HIPPA rights.
Or will you take defensive measures, will you call the cops, would you expect them to disarm the crazy, as judged by you, person?
ME:
Nice snark and dramatic response. Sorry your example makes no sense and does not apply to the topic at hand...
Do you support Second Amendment?
Why did you not answer any of my questions?
I will list them again:
How is that Tyranny?
How is “crazy” defined? ARE ALL ‘CRAZY’ PEOPLE DANGEROUS?
What illnesses are included?
Who does the diagnosis?
Who has access to the medical records that HIPPA is supposed to protect?
This thread is about confiscation of firearms prior to any threatening incident based on a vague? medical diagnosis by someone placed in a database viewable by someone. This is not dealing with an armed person who is proving to be an immediate threat.
In your example armed person might not be crazy—could be a lot of things...such as angry, intent on robbing me, etc. but not “crazy.” Look at certain streets in Chicago on any weekend night...the shooters are not crazy, they are lawless and immoral, but not “crazy.”
Why stop with vague definition “crazy??” In Jan/Dec 2017, Obama administration initiated rules that would prohibit seniors from possessing firearms if they needed any help with finances...
“Have you ever thought of letting someone else manage your finances? Under finalized new rules released just before Christmas by President Obama, Social Security recipients will be banned from buying a gun if they are deemed “financially incompetent.” Some 4.2 million Social Security recipients — about 10 percent of all people 65 and older — could lose the right to own a gun as a result.”
Just because someone can’t manage his finances doesn’t mean that he’s a danger to others.
So they don’t have a right to arm and defend themselves? Because Obama said so?
My mom when a little nutty when she went thru menopause—emotional swings, sitting outside in yard alone, etc. Oh it passed and was very temporary and episodic. However would you deny her Second Amendment rights? Would she have to turn in a firearm?
Slippery slope :(
I suggest you review the definition of Tyranny: GOVERNMENT by a ruler or small group of people who have UNLIMITED POWER OVER THE PEOPLE. That is what Second Amendment guards against.
2020 is over with this decision
You need to recognize how serious the threat to our Republic is. This man is all that stands between us and them.
IMHO you and other nervous nellies (no offense intended) need to see that this is Pres. Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the gun control debate, waiting for the fake dumbocrap fueled "outrage" to subside. Then he'll feed dumbocraps to the lions with his legitimate school protection proposals.
Your right to due process has nothing to do with me. It is a right that prevents the government from unreasonable search and seizure. Due process isn’t something I would concern myself with when faced with a crazy person with guns.
How is “crazy” defined?
I was reading some idiot thing about “militias”. The liberal writer thought that it would be a good idea, and that everyone with a gun had to join a militia. And get together twice a year to train and stuff.
“And then - you can find out the crazy guy that doesn’t fit in. You and your buddies are talking about deer hunting, and this guy comes along with a Confederate Flag on his cap talking about government intrusion.” (No - the article wasn’t satire.)
So yes - to a liberal, if you have Confederate flag - you are crazy, and shouldn’t have a gun.
This reminded me of another Obama era example of government defining people who it considered a threat
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ...stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.
snip
“This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans,”
snip
In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments. But she agreed to meet with the head of the American Legion, who had expressed anger over the report, when she returns to Washington next week from a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Would we take firearms from them too?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/
Had Hillary been inaugurated, I suspect this would be ample reason to suspend Second Amendment rights for those named.
Slippery Slope!
Agree 100%
im sure they will get every liberal dr to say that people are crazy to get guns...
What many do not get is who defines crazy...Also Due Process is a joke as one it will bankrupt you and two most Judges are Anti Gun...I have been through Due Process and after 2.5 yrs and 100,000 in legal fees I was proven right...Due Process and the Courts are shams...
Absolutely, and sadly Trump will not be President forever—we will have a radical in White House again, so need to be very careful about slippery slope!
Just as important, I don’t think prohibiting firearm possession by “crazy” people will ensure safety of children in schools...
All kinds of gang thug felons in Chicago are shooting innocents with illegal firearms.
Absolutely, and sadly Trump will not be President forever—we will have a radical in White House again, so need to be very careful about slippery slope!
#####################
SPOT ON!
Due process wasn’t the problem. The problem was the government failed at every level. There were numerous opportunities to arrest him and take his guns without violating his due process rights.
From what I read on another thread**, it was an Obama Program called PROMISE that gave federal funding to school systems for keeping minority students involved in various “transgressions” away from law enforcement and out of the courts.
Absolutely it was GOVERNMENT WHO FAILED AT MANY LEVELS—SO WHY WOULD ANYONE BE ADVOCATING FOR MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT???
After the 2016 signing, it was announced a couple of weeks later on October 18,Broward County Public Schools was the only large urban district in the country to receive a Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant from the U.S. Dept. of Education totaling $53,808,909.
**http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3636095/posts
How federal funding kept Nikolas Cruz from getting arrested and unable to purchase firearms
“Sounds to me like you need a new Freeper handle”
I was thinking that handle is ironic too
“From what source did you learn of this context?”
Actually listening to the audio where Trump made the comments.
He clearly explains, in line with what the other speaker says, that it’s a situation where harm is reasonably expected before “due process” (to wit: getting an actual warrant) can be completed.
CNN et al selectively extracted the core quote, and presented it out of context with the obvious purpose of infuriating hardcore RKBA supporters. Many took the bait.
I see what you did there
Yes, that program was the main cause. But, there were offences away from school they ignored too.
The Sheriff was trying to keep the title of America’s safest town so he apparently expanded the area of the program to the whole town.
Unprincipled and not tied to the Constitution, just what we don’t need. I hope this is just a negotiation ploy to make the liberals think he is considering their views.
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.