Today’s video of trump talking about gun control

[Landrover]

It's not the NRA. It's the people that are members of the NRA, which is what 5+ million strong? That's a lot of votes.

Also, the NRA's political contribution amounts are paltry vs. other lobbying groups. $200 million in 20 years from the NRA, vs. the labor unions that contributed over $1 billion IN ONE YEAR to politicians.

So, the NRA's influence is not about $ donated to politicians, it's the underlying membership numbers that carry influence. And that's the beauty of our political system, that an organization can represent and carry influence on behalf of the "little guy". For $40/year, you can have your voice heard in Washington D.C. and Austin.

I just donated another $1500 today to the NRA. The time is now. Stand up, or be prepared to get run over.

Back in 2012 or so while i was on capital hill the rankings for congressional influence (not dollars per se) was:

3. Unions (all combined as one entity )
2. Big Pharma. (Which I was a member of)
1. NRA

I was floored and actually glad someone else had the spotlight for good or bad.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[bloodtrailer28]

Funny who has been coming around and posting so much lately.

[ttechdallas]

This seems like an overreaction to Trump-speak when you look at this in the context of police being able to remove gun(s) from someone acting crazy or violent. He did make a bad word choice with "due process".

I guess I am just skeptical that any of this represents a threat to our 2nd amendment rights., though. There is no liberal leader capable of leading a successful legal challenge and overthrow of the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS would overturn it on appeal, anyway. On top of that, there is no way to disarm Americans without literally going house to house and for that to be successful would require incredible planning and coordination with military and law enforcement in absolute secrecy combined with overwhelming force.

More than half of house and senate members (Rep & Dem) are pro 2nd amendment. Most of our military, especially those who would have to be on the ground rounding up guns, are not only pro 2nd amendment, but gun owners. As for law enforcement, most of them are card carrying members of the NRA and as pro-2nd amendment as you can be. So it seems inconceivable that if a plan was even in its embryonic stage, there wouldn't be an open rebellion from within our own government and military.

I think the far greater threat posed by the left is to hunting as we know and love it.

[Artos]

He said the words himself ttech!!

For those few who hold this topic dear above most any other issue & so close to our hearts, it is (for me anyway) nothing but a painful sucker punch to the gut right now. To fear there is even the slightest chance to abandon liberty & one's constitutional rights (especially in regards to #2) that now has verbal confirmation of it actually being forsaken by the very person in leadership you had faith to protect?? Plus he went Straight to the top shelf concern regarding confiscation without due process is just icing.

Look at this thread & how few replies of concern there are vs armed teachers, the 21 change & banning AR's, which mean little in direct comparison compared to this monster...it follows along with the same indifference the msm has. It should actually be front page news for weeks. I can only guess those of the mindset of msnbc hate trump so much it burns them up to publicly support the very same deviant comments we already expect & have heard from Schumer, Pelosi & Hillary. Same goes for Fox & another assumption I fear that many also may align with & am hearing on the street. He either doesn't mean it to stir the pot, or deep down feel such barbaric & treasonous statements are actually well intentioned / righteous which would only actually ever be applied to thugs.

The NRA better be bending his ear & expect them to put this at the front of the action item list to address. Until trump clearly gives a detailed clarification that results in absolute closure to his volatile statements where he stands on this, he is no longer a friend to the 2nd & will remain on the list.

[Shane]

This seems like an overreaction to Trump-speak when you look at this in the context of police being able to remove gun(s) from someone acting crazy or violent. He did make a bad word choice with "due process".

I guess I am just skeptical that any of this represents a threat to our 2nd amendment rights., though. There is no liberal leader capable of leading a successful legal challenge and overthrow of the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS would overturn it on appeal, anyway. On top of that, there is no way to disarm Americans without literally going house to house and for that to be successful would require incredible planning and coordination with military and law enforcement in absolute secrecy combined with overwhelming force.

More than half of house and senate members (Rep & Dem) are pro 2nd amendment. Most of our military, especially those who would have to be on the ground rounding up guns, are not only pro 2nd amendment, but gun owners. As for law enforcement, most of them are card carrying members of the NRA and as pro-2nd amendment as you can be. So it seems inconceivable that if a plan was even in its embryonic stage, there wouldn't be an open rebellion from within our own government and military.

I think the far greater threat posed by the left is to hunting as we know and love it.

OK, so let's say Trump gets his way and police can now take guns away from whoever the government says might be crazy or dangerous without due process (not confiscating every weapon in a big sweep, but one house at a time based on who is deemed potentially dangerous without due process). And after a couple more years, Trump isn't President anymore. Michelle Obama is. How do feel about the government's power to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now?

[BigWes]

OK, so let's say Trump gets his way and police can now take guns away from whoever the government says might be crazy or dangerous without due process (not confiscating every weapon in a big sweep, but one house at a time based on who is deemed potentially dangerous without due process). And after a couple more years, Trump isn't President anymore. Michelle Obama is. How do feel about the government's power to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now?

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm sick and tired of people who think it's ok to give "our guy" certain powers just because they are in office now. They don't think of the potential damage that can be done when "the other guy" gets into office.

I was starting to come around to Trump because he has actually gotten a lot done for good in a relatively short time (for government work). But this proves what I've always thought, that he's got no philosophical depth to his being a Republican. He's a shallow capitalist that ran as a Republican because it was a good opportunity for him.

And for those that pointed out that Mike Pence attempted to save him from himself and trump DOUBLED DOWN. Thank you too!

If Obama, Clinton, or even Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell had made that very statement, we'd be calling for their head on a platter. Conservative leaders need to get Trump in line ASAP. As for 2020, I'm looking for another option. He just "announced" he's running. I'm hoping he gets taken out in a primary.

[Anvilheadtexas]

OK, so let's say Trump gets his way and police can now take guns away from whoever the government says might be crazy or dangerous without due process (not confiscating every weapon in a big sweep, but one house at a time based on who is deemed potentially dangerous without due process). And after a couple more years, Trump isn't President anymore. Michelle Obama is. How do feel about the government's power to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now?

Shane makes a great point. The danger here is not the danger of losing our collective right to have guns, the real danger is a government that gets to select individually who gets to have them and who does not based on their criteria of who might be “dangerous”. Wouldn’t it really suck to somehow or another wind up on that list of who might be “dangerous”?

[batmaninja]

OK, so let's say Trump gets his way and police can now take guns away from whoever the government says might be crazy or dangerous without due process...

Dont just stop at guns, its a very slippery slope. Once those are taken, what stops them from taking more rights?

I still see this as a mental issue problem and not a gun problem. But it is much easier to sell to the public that they are going take guns away from the red neck backwards gun owners. Versus say possibly taking everyone's freedoms away.

[ttechdallas]

OK, so let's say Trump gets his way and police can now take guns away from whoever the government says might be crazy or dangerous without due process (not confiscating every weapon in a big sweep, but one house at a time based on who is deemed potentially dangerous without due process). And after a couple more years, Trump isn't President anymore. Michelle Obama is. How do feel about the government's power to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution now?

I'm not discounting your or others' positions or concerns. I just run things through my own filter of what has to happen or be true in order for x to happen or y to not happen. First, I don't presume Trump to mean just start taking guns and perform due process afterward. I presume a set of guidelines would be established that in situations where it was warranted, police could remove guns from an individual's possession for x number of days while a process was followed that determined conditions for their return unless other crimes or criteria warranted otherwise. Republicans may give in on certain items, but there is no way anything gets passed that does adequately address this.

Second, Michelle or any democratic president will have to replace at least 2 conservative justices and 1 moderate democrat leaning justice to have even the slightest chance to repeal or significantly alter the 2nd or other amendments. That isn't going to happen. Especially if Trump gets to name another justice. Even a liberal president with a majority democratic house and senate would not be able to effect such change because even if they managed to pass extreme gun control laws, it would take a full two year term to pass them through both houses and at least two more years before the challenges would make it to the supreme court. If this was undertaken, they would lose both majorities and it would be unwound before it ever reached the supreme court.

[Johnny]

Funny who has been coming around and posting so much lately.

*******. lol

Go Trump!!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Shane]

I'm not discounting your or others' positions or concerns. I just run things through my own filter of what has to happen or be true in order for x to happen or y to not happen. First, I don't presume Trump to mean just start taking guns and perform due process afterward. I presume a set of guidelines would be established that in situations where it was warranted, police could remove guns from an individual's possession for x number of days while a process was followed that determined conditions for their return unless other crimes or criteria warranted otherwise. Republicans may give in on certain items, but there is no way anything gets passed that does adequately address this.

Second, Michelle or any democratic president will have to replace at least 2 conservative justices and 1 moderate democrat leaning justice to have even the slightest chance to repeal or significantly alter the 2nd or other amendments. That isn't going to happen. Especially if Trump gets to name another justice. Even a liberal president with a majority democratic house and senate would not be able to effect such change because even if they managed to pass extreme gun control laws, it would take a full two year term to pass them through both houses and at least two more years before the challenges would make it to the supreme court. If this was undertaken, they would lose both majorities and it would be unwound before it ever reached the supreme court.

If we start ignoring various amendments to the Constitution, then the near impossibility of repealing them will become irrelevant. You trust the government far more than I do if you are comfortable with them arbitrarily coming up with "guidelines" where it would be OK to ignore the Constitution.

[bloodtrailer28]

*******. lol

Go Trump!!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I knew I wasn't the only one that noticed amusing how he disappeared for awhile and as soon as something negative went down BAM the multi quotes were back in full force

Hopefully Trump will clear this crap up if not he will lose a ton of votes including mine. I have been impressed so far with some of the things he got got done but this crap is to much.

[Playa]

What’s fascinating is that we have a TBH thread with multiple posts taking positions critical of Trump without a barrage of pro-Trump rebuttal. As pointed out in the previous posts, what he said and then said with clarity was extreme and should serve as a collective warning light that up until yesterday may have been been too dim for some to see. Also for those wavering, you do not have to like Obama, wish Hillary won, be a liberal or not want to help in ensuring this country remains a great country in order to question the situation.

To be fair if this thread was titled something a bit more to the point I think it would get more traffic. That and several of the other threads were started At the Campfire where they just get more visibility.

I still haven’t seen video of Trump saying seize before due process, anyone got a link? I didn’t hear it in the clip in the OP

[texansfan]

I still haven’t seen video of Trump saying seize before due process, anyone got a link? I didn’t hear it in the clip in the OP

Part of the problem in America is that the voters are sheepish and too lazy to do their own independent research.

I takes all of six seconds to find it on YouTube

https://youtu.be/yxgybgEKHHI

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. Posting of objectionable material in text, attachments or embedded links is grounds for immediate suspension.

I AGREE, PLAY EMBEDDED VIDEO

[Anvilheadtexas]

To be fair if this thread was titled something a bit more to the point I think it would get more traffic. That and several of the other threads were started At the Campfire where they just get more visibility.

I still haven’t seen video of Trump saying seize before due process, anyone got a link? I didn’t hear it in the clip in the OP

After you have conducted your due process and have watched the clip, feel free to share your thoughts and opinions.