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: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: UKTruth

One minute Republicans are calling Democrats crazy and delusional for wanting gun restrictions and guns taken away, the next they are cheering on a man who says to do exactly that.

Do you see how that can easily go both ways? That's how it usually works with these political issues these days, no matter what happens there are hypocrites on both sides. That couldn't possibly be intentional could it?


Not really. I said I think what Trump suggests is wrong, which is the same position I would I have if anyone said it. Unlike, those that have switched to 'take the guns' to 'Trump is an authoritarian'.




posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Observing that Trump is an authoritarian is nothing new.

Did you pledge your loyalty? No? Shame on you.

edit on 3/1/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

You must have missed rickymouse's post above as to how easy it is to create a fake facebook account.
Your neighbour after a disagreement over the way your leaves blow onto his property could have a photo of you and set up such an account in your name with pictures of guns and all



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom




He could have been given the rifle, stolen it, bought it, or "found" it.

He bought it. Legally. It is known where he bought it, and when.


So? If he was bound and determined he could have gotten it elsewhere.

The important point is, if an 18 year old isn't mature enough to buy a gun, he has no business enlisting in the Army, right?



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Observing that Trump is an authoritarian is nothing new.


It’s nothing correct either. Such claims are at best ill-informed, at worst outright slander.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Had no business being drafted either, back in my day.

But those underdeveloped forebrains are good for something when it comes to war.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage




Observing that Trump is an authoritarian is nothing new.


It’s nothing correct either. Such claims are at best ill-informed, at worst outright slander.


In this case, libel. Perhaps. Unless it's against the government. Then it's protected by the 1st.




edit on 3/1/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Phage




Observing that Trump is an authoritarian is nothing new.


It’s nothing correct either. Such claims are at best ill-informed, at worst outright slander.


In this case, libel. Perhaps. Unless it's against the government. Then it's protected by the 1st.





I wasn’t speaking in legalisms. Slander has a layman usage, believe it or not.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Phage

But I'm all for "red flag" laws. If someone is displaying behaviors which indicate a threat to themselves or others (mental illness does not qualify) the court should be able to order their guns removed.


Is overeating to the point of morbid obesity enough to get someone on the witch list? I mean, after all, that is definitely behavior which is a threat to the person themselves.

The topic is guns. Atherosclerosis is seldom a factor in murder/suicides.


Really? Suicide by knowingly ruining your health doesn't have the same outcome?

Also, most gun suicides are not murder/suicides. They're just suicides. In fact, the VAST majority of them do not harm anyone other than themselves. The stated goal was to also prevent these people from harming themselves. Whether they do it with guns or not is kind of irrelevant. If a person is a danger to themselves because they just have a reckless lifestyle, they're basically suicidal, no?
edit on 1-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Slander has a layman usage, believe it or not.

Oh.


edit on 3/1/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Once you're done with that you can come back and tell me how many people you personally know who are not "mentally ill".

I'm perfectly aware most people are much less stable than they portray themselves to be, that does not change my point. If a large fraction of people are on antidepressants then a large fraction of people should find it harder to acquire a weapon or find a better way to deal with their depression. Just because so many people are verging on into the realm insanity doesn't make it any less of a problem, it only shows how wide spread the problem is and should make you even more worried about hordes of unstable people owning weapons.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Had no business being drafted either, back in my day.

But those underdeveloped forebrains are good for something when it comes to war.



Yep, it all depends on the "needs of the government." It's OK for an 18 year old to have a gun if we need cannon fodder for the next "regime change."

This law isn't about protecting American citizens. If it were, the same restrictions on gun ownership for civilians would also apply to military and law enforcement.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Once you're done with that you can come back and tell me how many people you personally know who are not "mentally ill".

I'm perfectly aware most people are much less stable than they portray themselves to be, that does not change my point.


Indeed it doesn't. People like you want to effectively cancel the bill of rights and claim that's not what you're trying to do. The number of people who wouldn't lose their rights if people like you have their way is so small as to be the same exact thing as saying "That's it. Nobody has any rights anymore. Too bad". If you can admit that, we can move on.

And I mean ALL rights. Not just gun rights. I'm not stupid.
edit on 1-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

You are absolutely right. If it's a law it applies to everybody under the flag.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Once you're done with that you can come back and tell me how many people you personally know who are not "mentally ill".

I'm perfectly aware most people are much less stable than they portray themselves to be, that does not change my point. If a large fraction of people are on antidepressants then a large fraction of people should find it harder to acquire a weapon or find a better way to deal with their depression. Just because so many people are verging on into the realm insanity doesn't make it any less of a problem, it only shows how wide spread the problem is and should make you even more worried about hordes of unstable people owning weapons.


Also, I think I should point out that I did not mean that I personally think everyone is crazy. I don't. What I actually meant to say that the entire "mental health problem" has been fabricated. Reality has been engineered in such a way that it basically has the same effect as Orwell's thought police. Or at least that's what it will eventually turn into. People will eventually literally be afraid to think for themselves out of fear of being deprived of what few rights they have left. (I thought it was rather obvious what I meant to say but apparently not).

Essentially, it's the end of freedom as we know it. And it has been done on purpose. There's my conspiracy theory for the day. Now you can call me crazy.
edit on 1-3-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Not surprising move by Trump at all unfortunately. He already demonstrated on DACA that he is perfectly willing to pivot to the center / left.

People need to understand, Trump is not a Republican, but he is also not a Democrat either. He isn’t even a politician. I would describe him simply as American in this context, ie he is perfectly willing to adopt positions on both sides of the aisle and doesn’t really care as long it benefits his agenda.
And Trumps agenda is that just Trump. Love him or hate him, Trump is a deeply narcissistic guy. More so than most Presidents before him.

Trump was to be loved, preferably by everyone. Why do you think he obsesses over the media all day long? Trump wants to be worshipped, preferably by everyone. Trump wants to be seen as accomplishing stuff, doing great things. What that is is almost irrelevant. I fully believe Trump would sign virtually everything Congress puts on his desk, as long as you kiss is *** enough and he thinks it might make him look good.

The only reason people and especially his more fanatic supporters were able to ignore it for so long is the hatred of the Democrats which pushed Trump far to the right. Don’t think for a second Trump ever intended to govern as the most conservative President in living memory (yes that includes Reagans first year). Trump would be much more inclined to govern with both sides of Congress. He’d be more than willing – and has demonstrated twice know – to sell the farm as far as republican/ conservative/far-right political positions go.

Now of course it wont work. If the Democrats were smart, they would get over their hatred for him for just long enough to take what he puts on the table. Restrictive gun laws or even an assault weapons ban might earn Trump some praise in the media which might even lead to better approval ratings for him in the short term (he’ll they something dumb enough for the media to justly or unjustly rip him apart soon enough anyway), but it will alienate his base, dooming the GOP in 2018 and his chances for reelection in 2020.

Trump of course is not smart enough to understand all of this (unless you still think that guy is playing 4d chess or something) and doesn’t recognize the danger he has put himself in. If he doesn’t find someone to explain things for him real quick and hands the Dems a victory on Gun Control he will be in very hot water.
On the other side, its still more than possible that the Dems decline this offer out of pure hatred for the man, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Which is fine by me.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight
Not surprising move by Trump at all unfortunately. He already demonstrated on DACA that he is perfectly willing to pivot to the center / left.


It's one thing to "pivot". It's another thing entirely to flap in the breeze.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, Trump is playing his cards in a way that will ultimately gain him bipartisan support if it works. Many of the things he is supporting will not get passed with a republican strong congress, and he knows we know that. Trump needs republicans to dominate in order to get certain things through legislation, but that won't happen if republicans lose too many seats in the midterms. The game is simple. Butter up the democrats and left leaning swing voters for his next election, and scare / call to action swing voters for the midterms.



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Wedge issue for me.

Raise the age for rifles to 21, ban semiauto, etc = dead to me. I will vote against him out of spite



posted on Mar, 1 2018 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Well, now people can finally stop comparing Trump to Reagan.

They should find some other Republican to compare him to.

Perhaps find one that discontinued Constitutional protections during his Presidency.

Lincoln maybe?








 
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join