President Trump's legislative magnum opus: Gun Control

originally posted by: redempsh
a reply to: KawRider9

Nope, you're right. No one will take them.

More and more people will give them up because of the legal headache and suspicion surrounding them.


The whole goal behind "universal background checks" is to finally succeed in tracking the inheritance and gifting of guns. The thing that irks the ATF, FBI et al is that it is legal to share, trade and sell firearms without any record in their files. They will attack this first.

They won't spend dollar one on enforcement. Just like Australia. But the penalties for violating what will amount to a registration law will have an impact over time. Year by year, even law-abiding gun owners will own fewer and fewer guns.

The real audience is the majority of the US public---who do not own guns. To them, $25 a year per gun, to register your gun, sounds reasonable. Then you'll have to carry another $25 per in insurance per gun.

So, $50 per year per gun. And violation becomes a felony, barring you from ever legally owning or transferring a gun in the future....

They don't need cops; they have bureaucracy.

If you own ONLY privately purchased firearms, there will be no records and no way to tax nobody....there's always ways around stupid bureaucracy !

People are allowed to change their minds as many times as they want to as they get more information. I don't see an issue with flip flopping on policies, from either candidate.

a reply to: redempsh

All the Hillary folks should just vote for Trump.

At least Trump wasn't responsible for ISIS or Benghazi.

The shilling is unabashed in this thread. So, you would want us to be more afraid of Trump's desire "to take our guns" than Hillary's intense, throbbing, pulsating, desire to have us defenseless and subject to her twisted lawyer mind and sense of justice in her world? Really?

Next.

originally posted by: Lysergic
Come and Take it.

The delusion that "legal" armaments are any match against any modern army is laughable.

You do know that the process of limiting access to arms has been well underway for such a long time now... coming to grab your hand guns and hunting rifles. Really a matter of time and social pressures.

a reply to: redempsh

I'm concerned that you don't understand that the president does not legislate--he cannot do anything that you're speaking of as president, he can only sign into law things that the congress passes, and even then, what you discuss would be taken to court immediately with a stay put on the new law until all appeals were granted.

And then like others said, there are those of us unwilling to give up such rights just because of an overreaching federal government.

The funny thing about taking away rights is that you can limit free speech as much as you want and people only hurl words at you--words don't hurt. Put too many limits on our right to keep and bear arms, and words aren't the only things that will start flying through the air.

My, my...

ATS, it seems, has been infiltrated with pro HRC supporters lately and these types of (BS) threads prove it. The reaching and conjecture of HRC's supporters is laughable. Especially on this issue.

Mr. Trump is pro 2a. The NRA has publicly voiced their support and are backing Trump.

I think most Americans agree that if you are on the no-fly or terrorist watch list, you should not be able to purchase firearms.
That's just being smart, imho. Most folks who are on that list are on there for a reason but, if you are on that list through no fault of your own, then I am sure there are ways to fix that.

Here is a link to his website where you can read where he stands on the issue. It's pretty clear, how he feels.

Trump's Stance on the Second Amendment

a reply to: SlapMonkey

even then, what you discuss would be taken to court immediately

Which would be a lose if activist judges are appointed into a majority.

a reply to: lovebeck

I think most Americans agree that if you are on the no-fly or terrorist watch list, you should not be able to purchase firearms.

You cannot deprive a US citizen of any right without DUE PROCESS.

Also, the no-fly list has majority Muslim, which is racist. The problem with the no-fly list, and using it to deny people firearms, is the fact that most of those people cannot purchase firearms in the US because the majority of those people are foreigners.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: lovebeck

I think most Americans agree that if you are on the no-fly or terrorist watch list, you should not be able to purchase firearms.

You cannot deprive a US citizen of any right without DUE PROCESS.

Also, the no-fly list has majority Muslim, which is racist. The problem with the no-fly list, and using it to deny people firearms, is the fact that most of those people cannot purchase firearms in the US because the majority of those people are foreigners.

You can't deprive US citizens of any right without due process- legally.
Police and politicians are above the law, and they can do whatever they damn well please.

I wish it were note true- but it must be, since they break these sorts of laws on a regular basis.

The no fly list shouldn't exist, it's just more nonsense thought up to deprive the rights of any citizen that someone above us peasants doesn't like, for any reason they see fit.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Also, the no-fly list has majority Muslim, which is racist.

...because we have so many terror attacks and plots stemming from non Muslim individuals, right? Sorry, but statistical probabilities aren't racist, they're mathematical.

Oh wait... apparently that's a thing now among some. Pythagoras clearly donned the robes and pointy hat... money.cnn.com...

:rolleyes:

a reply to: lordcomac

What strikes me,

During the Bush years, liberals were criticizing (and rightly so), the no fly list and how it was unconstitutional.

Now the liberals are cheering Hillary Clinton and the democrats for attempting to deprive 2nd amendment rights to people on the no fly list.

It seems neither political party cares about the constitution, unless the opposition is doing it.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We don't have a right to fly on privately owned companies planes.

I don't have a problem with the no-fly list, or the fact it is mostly Muslim foreigners.

However, there are Americans on that list, and depriving them of 2nd amendment rights without DUE PROCESS is unconstitutional.

If someone is too dangerous to fly, and arguing they are too dangerous to own firearms, wouldn't it be that those people are too dangerous to walk around in public? Should people on the no-fly list just automatically be thrown in prison for life, or better yet just executed, including the five year old white children on that list, and people with similar names?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: lovebeck

I think most Americans agree that if you are on the no-fly or terrorist watch list, you should not be able to purchase firearms.

You cannot deprive a US citizen of any right without DUE PROCESS.

Also, the no-fly list has majority Muslim, which is racist. The problem with the no-fly list, and using it to deny people firearms, is the fact that most of those people cannot purchase firearms in the US because the majority of those people are foreigners.

My bad. I thought the people on the list were on there for a reason, like after being charged with a crime, etc...

I also believe in due process, 100%. But which administration is responsible for these lists, the years active, how many folks are placed on them each year, etc?

Or are they top secret?

a reply to: lovebeck

You can check the list here.

Unlikely terrorists on no fly list

8 ways you can end up on no fly list

NOTE: The terrorists that have attacked America, none have been on a no-fly list. May be anecdotal evidence, but it is strong evidence that no-fly list is ineffective.

a reply to: GodEmperor

I don't think you and I are too far apart on this. I think the no fly list has merit, however there has to be a revision to how it is established and maintained, including adding due process to not only placing someone on the list, but also providing a mechanism of grievance for a person to get off the list in a timely fashion if they do not belong on the list.

Frankly the fact that the list is predominantly Muslim and foreign connected Muslim is 100% a testament to the validity of Trump's call for a pause in permitting Muslims into the USA while the vetting system is ironed out and improved. "We'll allow you into our country to interact with people, potentially carrying out attacks in workplaces, malls, and nightclubs, but we don't trust you on an airplane" is bullcrap. Those people shouldn't have been allowed into the country to begin with and, if already here, they should be removed ASAP.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm not sure about its' effectiveness.

A terrorist would be informed they are being watched simply by attempting to fly.

That may not be a bad thing if that terrorist was in a foreign nation. If they were already stateside, then they would just change identities and use a different mode of transportation. This is something to consider with a no-fly list, it makes any terrorist under investigation or suspicion to be informed of that fact, and allows them to change their tactics.

If there is to be a watch list, there has to be due process, I agree with you on that.

There is strong evidence that suggests, terrorism is linked to conflict zones. So countries in civil wars, like Syria, should have travel bans on people coming into the country. I agree with Trump on this issue, if it were Sweden in a protracted civil war, I would support travel bans to and from Sweden.

i love reading the comments of 'come take my guns' etc etc as if charlton heston were saying it.
pretty funny that way.

why do people think trump is going to come take their precious guns?

from his site

Defend the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
Nominate United States Supreme Court justices that will abide by the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States that includes upholding the Second Amendment.
Enforce the laws on the books. We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals.
Expand and bring back programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.
Empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement does a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time.
Fix our broken mental health system. All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help.
Defend the rights of law-abiding gun owners:
Military bases and recruiting centers - to have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves
National right to carry – should be legal in all 50 states
Background checks - we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.
Gun and magazine bans - the government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own

We know for a fact that Hillary will do it, we have a better chance with Trump

originally posted by: kamebard

The delusion that "legal" armaments are any match against any modern army is laughable.

You do know that the process of limiting access to arms has been well underway for such a long time now... coming to grab your hand guns and hunting rifles. Really a matter of time and social pressures.

Small arms are all that the Taliban has had for, what, 12 years now?

You cannot invade and seize territory with only small arms. But you can launch a resistance movement that ties down entire divisions. Even the crappiest IEDs turn deadly when you have to take small arms fire while you degrade/neutralize them.

clearing a highway in the mountains of Afghanistan, with 20 EIDS and a few dozen rifles.... takes five armored vehicles and 30 soldiers. And it might take 3 or 4 days. Only the USA can afford to put on that sort of an effort. If it WAS the battlefield, it'd be impossible to hold rugged/urban terrain in the US.

Like Falujjah, but involving multiple US metropolitan areas.

It is DEFINITELY something everyone (even arms grabbers) want to avoid.