It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Donald Trump Says, 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Pure and simple. Trump has always reminded me of the line from that old
csny tune,
Do you think she loves you
do you think at a a all.




posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll




I think the police should be able to make a little house call, complete with search warrant. If there's an arsenal there for material evidence, combined with his statements on social media, they should be able to take him to the nearest nut-house. Even against his will. I would totally be in favor of that.


So you are in approval of Trumps words today.


Leave your freedoms at the door and up to the judgement of authority and courts...which are never wrong...ever.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath.
Gun grab for “certain individuals that are deemed to be dangerous”
Now what would be their definition of “dangerous”?....who knows?
If some fool posts a picture of themselves brandishing a gun on Facebook or whatever, with a caption that reads “watch out” or some other nonsense, sure....take the gun and look up their ass with a microscope.
Bottom line is, don’t provide them with some evidence that makes you look like a lunatic with guns.
Everyone that I know that owns guns(which is almost everyone I know), doesn’t do stupid crap like that.
It’s called responsible gun ownership.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
If someone is making threats, go take the guns, documenting the guns and keeping them safe till after the hearing on the matter. We need to revise the law a bit. This should require a court order, probable cause. The firearms could also be given to a close relative to hold. That relative should be held responsible for making sure the person does not get them till after the hearing. If the person shows up to get the guns from the relative, that relative has to report them taken though, as soon as they know it has been done.

As long as the law doesn't get twisted so they take away the guns of someone who yells at their neighbor for tossing their leaves in their yard, I see no problem with this. Also, it has to be shown that the person is actually the one that made the comment on social media. Anyone could start a Facebook page on someone else. I never had to prove who I was when I made a page.


Taking guns for mental illness and speech is basically giving the government the right to take them from anyone at any time. Such a broad statute would be wide open for abuse. Not to mention, it would justify a whole new level of monitoring what one says. It would be an absolute police state, and your guns would be taken for sure.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At the very least he (not his press secretary) should publicly clarify his thoughts on all of this.

It has ignited a lot of rage among his base supporters.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

if someone is threatening to do a mass shooting, issue a warrant, search home if evidence is found i say yes detain the person and take away their guns until due process can work itself out. we definitely should be taking these types of threats seriously. at the end of the day charge them with making terrorist threats and take away their gun rights if proven guilty.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
I was surprised he said this But I got the impression he was talking about cases like Cruz..

Lets be honest that guy should have never been allowed to keep his guns due process be damned.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At the very least he (not his press secretary) should publicly clarify his thoughts on all of this.

It has ignited a lot of rage among his base supporters.


He’s speaking his mind. What has ignited the rage is the portrayal by those acting in bad faith: the political class and their parrots who seek to make political gain.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At the very least he (not his press secretary) should publicly clarify his thoughts on all of this.

It has ignited a lot of rage among his base supporters.


I'm positive he'll walk it back tomorrow. Today was a really bad news day for Trump, and he wanted to get control of the news cycle.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: notsure1




due process be damned.

There was plenty of time to get a court order. If Florida had such a law, that is. It doesn't.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




I'm positive he'll walk it back tomorrow.


Right.

"I was wrong. I don't know what I was thinking."

Sure.


+8 more 
posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




He’s speaking his mind.

Yes.
His authoritarian, imperial, mind.

He speaks loudly. Without thought. Of what he knows little.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If there is probable cause to take an individuals firearms (e.g. Florida shooting) I don't oppose taking their firearms and having a judicial review to determine whether they are capable of possessing said firearms.

The Florida shooter schmuck is a perfect example. According to what has come out, this guy should have been banned from coming within 500' of a gun shop.

I really doubt trump was saying to take guns first, ask questions later, it was rather him saying when we know there is an issue we act instead of waiting to react. I think you know this as well, but you seem to like the cult you have grown, so I understand you must feed them nonsensical drivel on a regular basis. I don't fault you for it, i just wish you would go back to writing about ancient civilizations.

Those were the good days.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: theantediluvian
I was surprised he said this But I got the impression he was talking about cases like Cruz..

Lets be honest that guy should have never been allowed to keep his guns due process be damned.



Where do you draw the line...? Spousal abuse, DUI conviction, Reckless driving, Psychological therapy, What is the criteria for being a responsible adult and cleared to own firearms?

Trump opened a big ole can o worms, eh?
edit on 28-2-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




He’s speaking his mind.

Yes.
His authoritarian, imperial, mind.

He speaks loudly. Without thought. Of what he knows little.


You just described 80% of the world’s population.

But it’s the censorial, puritanical mind we should worry about. If you want to see a good actor go to a play.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




I really doubt trump was saying to take guns first, ask questions later

Except, that's exactly what he said.

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



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Taking guns for mental illness and speech is basically giving the government the right to take them from anyone at any time. Such a broad statute would be wide open for abuse. Not to mention, it would justify a whole new level of monitoring what one says. It would be an absolute police state, and your guns would be taken for sure.


No it isn't. Once there they would be held to the same policies that the ones who a Judge signs in have.

Seventy-two hour mandatory stay for evaluation, and after that the psychiatric staff decide whether he is a danger to himself or others. If they conclude he is, then they file the necessary pertinent information with the courts for a commitment hearing. The only thing being waived is the first hearing for the 72 hour evaluation.


edit on 2/28/2018 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




You just described 80% of the world’s population.

And I'm talking about one.
The POTUS.



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse




This should require a court order, probable cause.

There are four (at least) states which have exactly such a law, like a restraining order. Donald thinks that takes too long. If he thinks at all.


They can make a law sort of like is needed to get a search warrant. Just to confiscate the guns, not destroy them, just take possession of them and document exactly what they got.

The problem is that the people who want everyone's guns will turn in everyone that has a gun. I think the person calling in should be required to give their name so this law does not get abused. If a thief wants to target someone's house, they could call in an anonymouse tip then when the guns are gone and the person is defenseless, they can rob them.

That is the problem with this, it will get abused too. There has to be some way to use it to protect the rights of the gun owner too. If the person is a loose cannon, they should not have a gun....but the way to do this without causing all sorts of chaps is a problem. I know some people who would call anonymously on someone they know, those people I know who would call are a little nuts in the head, they think because they do not want a gun, nobody should have a gun. They would turn in their own father if their father bitched at them for doing something wrong. I must know twenty people who would do that kind of thing if they got pissed at someone. There will be abuse of anything they pass



posted on Feb, 28 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose.


I guess that means they will have to raise the age to 21 for anyone joining the military. I wonder how the MIC will deal with that?




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join