 
     |
| Well, there's always 2024. (Page 3/6) |
|
dennis_6
|
MAR 03, 08:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
rogergarrison
|
MAR 03, 09:08 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
President Trump never had the full support of the Republican party or even most Republican members in the government.
The "never-Trumpers" even started with them.
President Trump's campaign was a classic populist movement and it was never focused on one single issue.
I'd suggest waiting to see how all this shakes out before you start wearing that hair shirt that you just tried on for size. 
|
|
I seen his campaign, and administration so far, solidly on two issues (so maybe not one)...and hes trying to succeed. Those being the economy and illegal immigration. Both are succeeding to some extent...no thanks to liberals fighting everything at every turn...then totally making stuff up like a top secret affiliation with Russians. More people have jobs, everyone is making more money, companies are returning to US, most businesses are thriving that were on the fence, and even though theres no wall yet...mexican illegal entries are way down. Also important is the basic dismantling of Obumacare stupidity.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 03, 05:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmbishop:
The 2A is too big of an issue, what trump is currently proposing is absolutely going to hurt him in 2020 and I don't see him doing a 180 after making such public statements. I've been wrong before, I was convinced Hillary would win.
|
|
So is your concern all the 2A stuff?
Look... totally understand what gun ownership is for. It's not for hunting, it's not for sport, it's not even for self protection. It was given to us for the sole purpose of letting the government know that we have, and will use our guns, should the Government get beyond the scope originally envisioned by our founders. I think any logical or sane person can understand that that's WHY our founders ensured gun ownership.
But Trump... you know, before I even get to that point, I'm just going to lay out that I am a huge fan boy of the guy. Huge.
Ok, with that said... do you really think what Trump is talking about is really violating 2nd amendment? He banned bump stocks... big deal. That's like banning a dildos that are colored a specific hue of purple. No one is going to care except the person who makes them.
The rest of the stuff he's talking about, is just discussions. He hasn't done anything, and quite frankly, I'm not that bothered by some of the things they're concluding. None of this will even matter in the next 20-30 years when laser hand guns (being serious here) are easily available, and any joe schmoe can print or build their own gun anyway.
The Trump quote that everyone is freaking out about is really being taken out of context... it really is. I'd like to ask if anyone here was listening to that entire thing when he had that conversation?
Trump has been one of the most transparent presidents we've had in history. Normally meetings like this do not get televised. I'm really appalled that you guys are freaking out over a single sentence that's being taken out of context, during a bi-partisan discussion that Trump allowed to be televised?
They were talking about Florida's BAKER ACT. Anyone who knows what that is, Florida has the right to detain someone for 3 days to observe them when they believe they are suffering from mental illness and can be a harm to either themselves or others. He then talked about people who are suffering from mental illness and suggested in situations like that, that you should take the guns first. I totally don't have a problem with this.
The rest is simply ridiculous.
Let's look at what Trump has done:
1 - Gotten rid of TPP
2 - DRASTICALLY reduced corporate regulation.
3 - Reduced oil and fracking regulation, and re-opened oil drilling sites, including ANWAR.
4 - Neal Gorsich
5 - Most dramatic corporate tax rate cut in the history of the United States. Make no mistake about it, this isn't going to be raised. Look at the history of corporate tax rate cuts. When they get cut... they maybe get raised 1-3% at most, but it never goes back to what it was. This is here to stay.
6 - Repatriation of corporate overseas funds... more than 4 trillion
7 - We are BEYOND full employment.
8 - Lowest black unemployment in US history.
9 - Lowest Hispanic unemployment in US history.
10 - Most Federal and Appellate judges appointed at this point in a presidency, than any other previous president in history.
11 - Mass deportation of criminally illegal.
12 - Consumer confidence highest in almost 20 years.
... I mean, there's so many more. Deregulation of the medical industry. He allowed insurance to be purchased across state lines. The Democrats wouldn't DARE re-do this... they would never because it would dramatically increase costs.
**** ... I could go on forever... I'd like to say "get the **** out of here with your bull **** ..."
... but really I'd prefer to say, that you need to not allow yourself to be so drawn in by the 24/7 momentary news drama.
You're "alone" in this as a former Trump supporter. His approval ratings are higher than Obama's were right now. If the election was held right now, he would win with essentially bigger margins than he had originally.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 03, 05:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
They were talking about Florida's BAKER ACT. Anyone who knows what that is, Florida has the right to detain someone for 3 days to observe them when they believe they are suffering from mental illness and can be a harm to either themselves or others. He then talked about people who are suffering from mental illness and suggested in situations like that, that you should take the guns first. I totally don't have a problem with this.
|
|
Not to quibble, but the Florida Baker Act actually removes the person from the guns. Not the other way around.
They are taken into custody and placed in a hospital for 72 hour evaluation. That ONLY happens if the individual will not agree to the observation AND a psychiatric professional does a brief "check-up from the neck up" and concludes that involuntary temporary commitment is required.
IF that 72 hour evaluation concludes that the individual is a threat, THEN due process is conducted to confiscate any firearms before the individual is released. (They always have the right to refuse treatment.)
That due process takes place before a judge that must be convinced by EVIDENCE, (that includes medical/psychiatric reports), that an order to temporarily confiscate property is warranted. Note that is "temporarily", as once the individual has been deemed to be clinically healthy, they can immediately petition the court to get their guns back.
My son has a lot of LEO neighbors and BBQ's at my son's place with them are often very informative. They generally hate the idea of taking away legally owned guns w/o and even with due process.
Law enforcement practice, at least in my area, is to FIRST try to get responsible family to take custody of the individual's guns well before they have to seek a warrant in court.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-03-2018).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
MAR 03, 08:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Not to quibble, but the Florida Baker Act actually removes the person from the guns. Not the other way around.
They are taken into custody and placed in a hospital for 72 hour evaluation. That ONLY happens if the individual will not agree to the observation AND a psychiatric professional does a brief "check-up from the neck up" and concludes that involuntary temporary commitment is required.
IF that 72 hour evaluation concludes that the individual is a threat, THEN due process is conducted to confiscate any firearms before the individual is released. (They always have the right to refuse treatment.)
That due process takes place before a judge that must be convinced by EVIDENCE, (that includes medical/psychiatric reports), that an order to temporarily confiscate property is warranted. Note that is "temporarily", as once the individual has been deemed to be clinically healthy, they can immediately petition the court to get their guns back.
My son has a lot of LEO neighbors and BBQ's at my son's place with them are often very informative. They generally hate the idea of taking away legally owned guns w/o and even with due process.
Law enforcement practice, at least in my area, is to FIRST try to get responsible family to take custody of the individual's guns well before they have to seek a warrant in court.
|
|
No, I understand that. The person gets locked up for 3 days in a psychiatric ward.
Let me clarify so I'm not misspeaking here... Trump was using the Baker act as an example... he was saying that for other states (which don't have that)... in response to... (one of the Democrat senators I think it was), that in cases like that (in other states that don't have the baker act), if they receive calls / warnings / signs that (in the case of Florida, would likely lead to a baker act), the other states should just take the person's guns, while they wait out and investigate.
Does that make sense what I'm saying? That was the context in which all of this discussion was being prefaced. He wasn't just saying... "We should take guns, and worry about 2nd amendment later." I mean... people are literally freaking out over this... or at least, the news is telling me that people are freaking out over it. But they're totally misrepresenting what he's saying.
Hopefully I'm being clear.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 03, 08:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Does that make sense what I'm saying?
Hopefully I'm being clear. |
|
Clear as an un-mudded, spring fed, mountain stream my man.
You and I are in total agreement.
As I said earlier:
"The Right takes what Donald Trump says seriously but not literally. The Left takes everything Donald Trump says literally but not seriously."
In this instance it's notable that it was, once AGAIN, the media that wants everyone to take the President's off-the-cuff' words literally.
Personally, I'm enjoying watching President Trump "rope-a-dope" the knee-jerk left and media like this over, and over, and over again.
They never learn and they're SO damn predictable..
(Yes, I'm old enough to remember the very first use of the term "rope-a-dope", who coined it and what it really means.)[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-03-2018).]
|
|
|
|
dennis_6
|
MAR 03, 08:37 PM
|
|
|
Bump stocks are not a insignificant thing. They are junk, yes. However all semi autos, including pistols can bump fire without a stock. So someday a bump stock ban will equal a semi auto ban.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
MAR 03, 09:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dennis_6:
Bump stocks are not a insignificant thing. They are junk, yes. However all semi autos, including pistols can bump fire without a stock. So someday a bump stock ban will equal a semi auto ban. |
|
I guess you're too young to remember "fanning" the trigger on a old revolver.
|
|
|
|
dennis_6
|
MAR 03, 09:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
I guess you're too young to remember "fanning" the trigger on a old revolver.
|
|
No, i have shot a few single action revolvers in my time, and "thumbed" with supporting hand the hammer while holding the trigger.
|
|
|
|
jmbishop
|
MAR 04, 03:55 AM
|
|
The 2a is one of the top issues people who value it consider when voting.
And yes, bumpstocks are a huge deal, it's 100% anti 2a, if you don't get it, you don't understand the 2a. Admittedly, the bumpstock is a gimmick, but it sets the wrong precident, one that opens the door for more and more regulation as is did in the past. Any new regulation is unacceptable unless we are making ground with deregulation.
So if trump is going to trample the 2a, that's a huge part of his core voters gone. If the democrats were smart enough to put up a pro 2a candidate (they aren't), they'd mop the floor with trump.
|
|
|
|