Law Trump: Take Guns First, Due Process Second - Those Who Trade Freedom for Security Deserve and Receive Neither

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
http://archive.is/wTOwY





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.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.

Trump met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws and school safety in the aftermath of a Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead.

The suspected shooter, Nikolas Cruz, was able to legally purchase the AR-15 reportedly used in the shooting despite numerous calls to law enforcement about his unstable behavior.

 

[Red Hood]

On the one hand, I'm a gun guy. On the other hand, I've never trusted politicians and the outpouring of salt is going to be delightful.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

So.... why hasn't anyone seemingly said exactly that?

I have no fucking idea. Because it failed, I guess? Now we need super-special background checks that check the checks that were not checked before. That'll totally work this time.

 

[It's HK-47]

So.... why hasn't anyone seemingly said exactly that?

The same reason why nobody ever mentions that the Founding Fathers actually commissioned someone named Joseph Belton to construct 100 semi-automatic rifles that were capable of firing around 16 shots in 20 seconds before they needed to be reloaded. We have documented evidence of that, we have evidence of the rifles existing and that the Founding Fathers specifically wrote to him with an express interest in having them made and demonstrated the rifles to the Congress, but they declined the offer because he was asking for too much money.

This happened in 1777, more than a decade before the Second Amendment was put into action in 1789.

That'd stop that whole, "The Founding Fathers never knew about rapid-fire weaponry!" argument dead in its tracks, wouldn't it? It's a shame that people have become so abysmally short-sighted and idiotic that they can't read more than two or three sentences past a headline, let alone sit down and do any meaningful research. This whole gun argument is utterly moot in this instance, anyways, since repeated, systemic government failure is what led to the Parkland shooting, so what goddamned sense does it make to throw the ball back in the government's court when they just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they're incompetent?

 

[thejackal]

The same reason why nobody ever mentions that the Founding Fathers actually commissioned someone named Joseph Belton to construct 100 semi-automatic rifles that were capable of firing around 16 shots in 20 seconds before they needed to be reloaded. We have documented evidence of that, we have evidence of the rifles existing and that the Founding Fathers specifically wrote to him with an express interest in having them made, demonstrated the rifles to the Congress, but they declined the offer because he was asking for too much money.

That'd stop that whole, "The Founding Fathers never knew about rapid-fire weaponry!" argument dead in its tracks, wouldn't it? It's a shame that people have become so abysmally short-sighted and idiotic that they can't read more than two or three sentences past a headline, let alone sit down and do any meaningful research. This whole gun argument is utterly moot in this instance, anyways, since repeated, systemic government failure is what led to the Parkland shooting, so what goddamned sense does it make to throw the ball back in the government's court when they just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they're incompetent?

true, which is why the "armed teacher" argument is so stupid. It's like saying "oh there should have been a net to catch the plane crashing". No, fuck no. Why would you think that late in the disaster?

The FBI fucked up. The incompetent playing with lambos Broward Sheriff fucked up. and imo also our gun laws fucked up. Look, someone like Cruz should not be getting a gun. I don't know how we prevent people like him from buying, but we certainly need to have a real discussion. And "he could just buy one illegally" isn't a great argument imo. If nothing else make it harder for autistic idiots like him to shoot up schools. Age limit on rifles is probably a good starting point.

 

[Red Hood]

true, which is why the "armed teacher" argument is so stupid. It's like saying "oh there should have been a net to catch the plane crashing". No, fuck no. Why would you think that late in the disaster?

The FBI fucked up. The incompetent playing with lambos Broward Sheriff fucked up. and imo also our gun laws fucked up. Look, someone like Cruz should not be getting a gun. I don't know how we prevent people like him from buying, but we certainly need to have a real discussion. And "he could just buy one illegally" isn't a great argument imo. If nothing else make it harder for autistic idiots like him to shoot up schools. Age limit on rifles is probably a good starting point.

As much as it pains me to say so, and I'm treading unpopular opinion territory, but I wouldn't be against a broad licensing system for firearms. At least as stringent as we get for cars (which to be honest, isn't very stringent- as long as you're not blind and you pass a really easy test, sure, take this 4000 lb steel behemoth.) with a bigger focus on general psychological evaluation, i.e. is this person clearly a danger to themselves or others? But like background checks, this is hard to work if schools aren't reporting infractions and law enforcement is lazy or therapists aren't reporting because of confidentiality.

There are plenty of people that use legally owned firearms for both defense and recreation daily. I don't want that right taken away. Plenty of people CAN be trusted with the responsible ownership of firearms. That, and I really want to own a pre ban Title 3 Thompson one of these days. Obviously I'll need to make bank to get a transferable one first but...keep the dream alive, all right?

And never forget, the person writing the legislation WILL BE an exceptional individual that doesn't know anything about firearms operation or the very features they want to ban. Or that the NFA and other legislation has existed for a long, long, time.

 

[Medicated]

The same reason why nobody ever mentions that the Founding Fathers actually commissioned someone named Joseph Belton to construct 100 semi-automatic rifles that were capable of firing around 16 shots in 20 seconds before they needed to be reloaded. We have documented evidence of that, we have evidence of the rifles existing and that the Founding Fathers specifically wrote to him with an express interest in having them made and demonstrated the rifles to the Congress, but they declined the offer because he was asking for too much money.

This happened in 1777, more than a decade before the Second Amendment was put into action in 1789.

That'd stop that whole, "The Founding Fathers never knew about rapid-fire weaponry!" argument dead in its tracks, wouldn't it? It's a shame that people have become so abysmally short-sighted and idiotic that they can't read more than two or three sentences past a headline, let alone sit down and do any meaningful research. This whole gun argument is utterly moot in this instance, anyways, since repeated, systemic government failure is what led to the Parkland shooting, so what goddamned sense does it make to throw the ball back in the government's court when they just proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that they're incompetent?

Then in that case, if any $50,000 a year Journo can easily collect this information, let alone a elementary school student. Then why this smokescreen of gun laws, when obviously everyone who should know whats really happening and who is at fault here? Is everyone shit scared of the FBI and the Justice Department or something? Why doesn't anyone say, "why did the system thats supposed to stop this person getting a gun fail" whos responsible? Whats their funding? Where does the money go how do they keep their records?

Why this "MUH GUN LAWS" thing? Whats the actual goal of that sort of narrative?

 

[It's HK-47]

Then in that case, if any $50,000 a year Journo can easily collect this information, let alone a elementary school student. Then why this smokescreen of gun laws, when obviously everyone who should know whats really happening and who is at fault here? Is everyone shit scared of the FBI and the Justice Department or something? Why doesn't anyone say, "why did the system thats supposed to stop this person getting a gun fail" whos responsible? Whats their funding? Where does the money go how do they keep their records?

Why this "MUH GUN LAWS" thing? Whats the actual goal of that sort of narrative?

Because the Democrats and Republicans get a talking point and lobbying interests, gun companies see massive boosts in sales, and the NRA's membership increases every time it's attacked. Go ahead and look at a list of politicians who own stock in firearms companies or in companies that lobby against firearms, sometime. The vast majority of politicians and corporations have no interest in solving problems because if they solved the issue, they'd be out of a job.

Why would the NRA slap down an argument on the table that completely dead-lines that entire attack against the Second Amendment? They don't want that, they want membership fees. I think the NRA does a tremendous job when it comes to advocating for gun safety and training and going well out of its way to shoot down any legislation aimed at hampering the Second Amendment. I think the NRA is a wonderful organization, but at the end of the day it's a profit-driven organization, and a profit-driven organization will always be interested in its profits.

 

[heathercho]

Then in that case, if any $50,000 a year Journo can easily collect this information, let alone a elementary school student. Then why this smokescreen of gun laws, when obviously everyone who should know whats really happening and who is at fault here? Is everyone shit scared of the FBI and the Justice Department or something? Why doesn't anyone say, "why did the system thats supposed to stop this person getting a gun fail" whos responsible? Whats their funding? Where does the money go how do they keep their records?

Why this "MUH GUN LAWS" thing? Whats the actual goal of that sort of narrative?

Because - the same reason places like resetera ban the stats on black people and crime - it means they have to face something they don't want to in order to enact change. It'd mean changing tact and being clever instead of being lazy, reeeeeeing assholes. It'd also mean compromise and that is much harder and annoying than just shrieking and demanding.

 

[Red Hood]

but at the end of the day it's a profit-driven organization, and a profit-driven organization will always be interested in its profits.

This is so simple, yet it might be the wisest thing I've ever read.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

I'm more excited for the mental gymnastics that /r/The_Donald will go through to justify being OK with violating due process.

Edit: It appears to be a split between "What the fuck, Donald?" and "273th dimensional backgammon"

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/80z30g/live_president_trump_meets_with_bipartisan/

That Reddit thread has more posts downvoted into oblivion and deleted comments than actual visible posts. I've never seen a thread on Reddit look like that before

 

[proteus4994]

That Reddit thread has more posts downvoted into oblivion and deleted comments than actual visible posts. I've never seen a thread on Reddit look like that before

lol I literally JUST saw a Reddit thread about the meltdown in there and came to see if anyone had mentioned it.

When I linked to it, it was still new and the mods hadn't done their purge yet.

Here's the ceddit link: https://www.ceddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/80z30g/live_president_trump_meets_with_bipartisan/

Edit: and the SRD link: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditD..._donald_is_imploding_following_trumps_progun/

 

[Ineedahero]

It's always amusing to see 25-year-olds project their love of shitposting and 4chan on a 75-year-old man who doesn't use the Internet outside of Twitter.

I was going to say I don't think anyone actually thinks that way, and they are just using shorthand and memes to say they like how he thinks, but that reddit thread makes me think I've been wildly optimistic.

 

[sperginity]

Im just cackling about how many Trump voters were terrified of Obama taking their guns away

 

[ColtWalker1847]

I don't know how we prevent people like him from buying, but we certainly need to have a real discussion.

Uh... enforcing the law? Cruz was really dirty and should have popped something on NICS. But he didn't. Law enforcement and the courts never pegged him on any of the threats, mental health issues, or two dozen odd DV complaints. Then you had the FBI screwups and general not-following-up on serious accusations and reports that should have gotten him flagged.

This was a clear case of LE failure on multiple levels. No question about it. I am not sure how you fix that by creating even more laws for them to not apply in the future.

Also, there are age minimums for rifle purchases. It's 18.

 

[Bassomatic]

Does Drumpf want dead ATF agents? Because that's how you get dead ATF agents.

 

[Viridian]

Does Drumpf want dead ATF agents? Because that's how you get dead ATF agents.

Speaking of the ATF... one of the fundamental problems with any debate over gun control--for or against--is that the agency created to enforce all the gun laws we pass has been deliberately hobbled by legislative riders and underfunded by Congress so that it can't even enforce the laws we already have on the books. As someone pointed out, the Brady Bill contains a lot of measures similar to what people are asking for today, but the ATF is honestly incapable of enforcing any of said laws or obeying its own regulations. Congress has even prevented the ATF from consolidating its records into a computer database, forcing them to go through box after box of paper archives instead.

So even if any new laws are passed, NRA-bought politicians will just make it almost impossible for the ATF to enforce them or investigate any violations. Even if violations are found, it takes many years for any kind of resolution or punishment. Both sides get what they want.


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra/

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/04/congress-atf-permanent-director-fast-and-furious/

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...ATF-underfunded-and-under-the-gun-5022600.php

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/01/12117/atfs-struggle-close-down-firearms-dealers

 

[Club Sandwich]

Congress has even prevented the ATF from consolidating it's records into a computer database, forcing them to go through box after box of paper archives instead.

the ATF is legally bound to not use the background checks as any form of gun registry. that's directly in the law because national gun registries, historically, are completely worthless, are expensive to maintain, and are virtually instantly out of date unless there is a mechanism to consistently update them. that isn't hobbling - that's reality.

So even if any new laws are passed, NRA-bought politicians will just make it almost impossible for the ATF to enforce them or investigate any violations. Even if violations are found, it takes many years for any kind of resolution or punishment. Both sides get what they want.

"NRA" bought politicians function like any other "bought" politician - campaign contributions from collective legislative organization to push an agenda their constituents agree with. the NRA-ILA, spends a fraction of what the anti-gun lobby spends. literally.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082
https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/political-nonprofits/summary?id=208802884
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067401
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q12
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/02/illinois-primary-race/

the difference is where it is spent. the NRA-ILA generally spends at a federal level and less often at state levels. the gun control lobby is split among many different organizations (Brady, VPC, Bloomberg's MAIG, Everytown, Soros, Clinton, et c).

motherjones, a notoriously left-wing anti-gun organization, points out several correct things, but misses that firearms are a fundamental human/civil right - something that is constantly constrained from infringement because it's directly written that it cannot be infringed. it's very hard to write legislation that gets around that. you would have better legal standing to get a new amendment ratified to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely (and good luck trying a workable way to enforce it).

background checks are not accessible by the public. only the FBI conducts NICS checks, and they do so on demand from FFL holders. they are legally forbidden from discriminating on a constitutionally protected right, so can only ask questions and check on prohibitions within a very narrow set of criteria. additionally the check relies on the public and law enforcement reporting into the system for felony convictions. you cannot legally deny people a protected civil right without due process and without any sort of reasonable expectation that is known and reported to the system. we are not living in Minority Report where thoughtcrime and pre-crime is a reality that can be counted on.

the ATF has constantly fucked themselves over with incompetence because they were chartered and meant to be tasked as a speciality investigative agency to work with local and federal law enforcement. they are effectively lawyers with guns and it shows. they have very little law enforcement experience or training. i can go on forever about the ATF. they are largely a joke because no one feeds them information for them to do their duty, the laws that are pushed by gun control pundits are confusing, contradictory, and outright nonsensical because gun control advocates are (unsurprisingly) completely ignorant about firearms, and lastly they flat out lack law enforcement training in any meaningful way.

in short: gun control is "controversial" because there are no easy answers and too many people are loudly very ignorant on the topic and demand "action now" without fully considering the reality of firearms in the US. and until that stops, it'll keep being a circular discussion after every tragedy where people die, politicians are useless, and money is spent - all to do nothing about finding and eliminating/reducing gun violence.

 

[TowinKarz]

On the plus side, I think that sound you hear is Remington anticipating an immediate return to profitability.

 

[Maxliam]

On the plus side, I think that sound you hear is Remington anticipating an immediate return to profitability.

Remington has had abyssmal QC problems for a long time. They're going down because people are tired of buying nothing but lemons from them.

I think this is the DACA thing all over. Trumps playing them like a fiddle. They push too far, it fails, he says "See I tried to meet them half way!" and the NRA membership and gun sales go up. It's already happening. People on /r/guns already admit to buying magazines to guns they don't even own.

 

[Medicated]

in short: gun control is "controversial" because there are no easy answers and too many people are loudly very ignorant on the topic and demand "action now" without fully considering the reality of firearms in the US. and until that stops, it'll keep being a circular discussion after every tragedy where people die, politicians are useless, and money is spent - all to do nothing about finding and eliminating/reducing gun violence.

Despite all of the political meandering everyone does about the gun issue. School shootings have increased by several thousand percent in the last few decades. And yet in the past, when guns were even easier to access, school shootings were down.

So what's the underlying reason for the gun violence then? Lax parenting? Family Breakdown? Social breakdown? Education breakdown? Internet hugboxes? Lack of mental health resources and treatment? All of the above?

I don't think anyone is interested in providing the funding to figure out what it is honestly. Humans are a near infinite and disposable resource.