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

Reading some of the hypothetical scenarios here about SWAT teams coming to take your guns etc reminds me of the kind of thing Black Lives Matter say.

Seems like Trump is the great uniter after all.

originally posted by: vonclod

I wonder how many times "came in and shat his pant's" was used..once at least.

It worked for Ted Nugent:

"Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin' and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie...Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value...Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up."

I'm certain he will walk it back but I can't pretend I wasn't stunned, maybe just maybe he could do what generations of gun control advocates couldn't do..but like I said, he is gonna walk it back some how.

OK this is funny just watching republicans stuck with there mouth open. Trump was never a republican he's a 80s democrat. Always has been what happened is democrats moved left leaving democrats like Trump to the right.

He's been a democrat his entire life but looking at his evolution he started a democrat moved to independent then a republican. Trump has always been a centrist and has both democrat and republican ideals.

a reply to: dragonridr

Ooh so now he is a Democrat??….he's a Republican you own him you keep him he is yours..

Ya, when he finds out his base is ready to dump him like yesterdays taco bell dinner, he will walk back on this like the two faced orange man boy he is.

Cant they just amend the second amendment? It's not like it's written on stone.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
You need a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress or a national convention of the state legislatures to summit constitutional amendment for ratification. Ratification requires a 3/4 majority of the states.

I do wish Trump would slow down and think abit.

If the person is so violent, or really is a threat to themselves, or a threat society, then place them in prison or a psychiatric ward. Then by proxy, they are separated from their weapons.

Cruz should have been isolated from society, and received a psychological evaluation long before the shooting. The more the onion is peeled, the shooting has more to do with shady liberal crime policies than gun control.

What really gets my goat? If a person is found mentally incompetent to practice the 2nd amendment, then they should be found mentally incompetent to vote. How can you be found deficient to exercise one right, but get the right to participate in far reaching elections?

originally posted by: Harpua
Ya, when he finds out his base is ready to dump him like yesterdays taco bell dinner, he will walk back on this like the two faced orange man boy he is.

How many hypocritical scandals was the Obama administration involved in?

Bernie sold out to Hillary. Bernie and his wife embezzled money from a college.

Has their base abandoned them?

The DNC rigged the Democrat’s primary? Has their base abandoned the DNC for a party founded on honesty?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Cant they just amend the second amendment? It's not like it's written on stone.

This is what always gets me when people cry about rules made centuries ago.

The clue is in the name: "Amendment"

Amendments are made when things change or progress to a point which necessitates remedial action.

Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.

"The right to bear arms" - how many? Which kind?

You could be allowed only a revolver at home and you're still having your right to bear arms met. You've all just decided to interpret it in a way which suits your narrative.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Cant they just amend the second amendment? It's not like it's written on stone.

This is what always gets me when people cry about rules made centuries ago.

The clue is in the name: "Amendment"

Amendments are made when things change or progress to a point which necessitates remedial action.

Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.

"The right to bear arms" - how many? Which kind?

You could be allowed only a revolver at home and you're still having your right to bear arms met. You've all just decided to interpret it in a way which suits your narrative.

You'll hear the argument that the right to bear arms and set up a militia in the event that the government goes rogue is why we are armed to the teeth. Well, the government went rogue a long time ago and is armed with reaper drones, Nuclear weapons and stealth aircraft. Nothing you can buy at Wallmart is gonna save your arse from your tyranical Government. As it stands the right to bear arms might as well say 'You have the right to bring a hammer to a Drone fight'.

To defend your home a Shotgun and a big arse dog should be sufficient. To hunt, Bows and X'Bows are enough to bring down every beast in the US.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.

So the right of free speech does not apply to modern media our founding fathers could not envision? The government has the right to monitor and politically censure private telephone calls, emails, blogs, websites, pod cast?

Stupid argument. In fact, the 2nd amendment does not say the right to bear single shot rifles. The constitution gives the right to bear arms as refined by more modern court battles.

I would argue by using the specific term to bear arms, the founding fathers know rifles would advance.

a reply to: fencesitter85

If you are not a founder then you dont know what they wanted. Even more, what they wanted is irrelevant. They stated clearly, "Shall not be infringed". And that is the law.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Leave it to Donald Trump to put the NRA and the ACLU on the same side of a lawsuit. Has no-one finished reading the Constitution to him?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: fencesitter85

If you are not a founder then you dont know what they wanted. Even more, what they wanted is irrelevant. They stated clearly, "Shall not be infringed". And that is the law.

Actually, the Founders made it pretty clear what they wanted in their writings. Historically, standing armies were used by autocrats, Emperors, Kings, etc, to impose their will on their subjects by force. This is why the Section VI of the Articles of Confederation places limits on the maintenance of "land forces," to be created by an act of Congress when necessary. The Second Amendment is clearly intended to provide for the common defense when necessary. The land forces were to be mustered by the states, from their self-armed citizenry, with the highest ranking officers appointed by the federal government.

So far, stupid is as stupid does has generated hundreds of replies here alone.

Just like intended. The one laughing with glee is Donald.

I command all these internets.

Internet bombs away!

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Cant they just amend the second amendment? It's not like it's written on stone.

This is what always gets me when people cry about rules made centuries ago.

The clue is in the name: "Amendment"

Amendments are made when things change or progress to a point which necessitates remedial action.

Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.

"The right to bear arms" - how many? Which kind?

You could be allowed only a revolver at home and you're still having your right to bear arms met. You've all just decided to interpret it in a way which suits your narrative.

Which is the exact same thing you are doing! Now see how that works?

a reply to: fencesitter85

This is what always gets me when people cry about rules made centuries ago.

Do you also get upset when people cry about the right to free speech, freedom of and from religion, and the right to not have to quarter government troops? Or is it just when people cry about the right to own firearms?

Amendments are made when things change or progress to a point which necessitates remedial action.

Yep. So write an amendment. There's a process for that. Don't write more laws that are based on actions that have been demonstrated umpteen times to be ineffective.

Having rapid-fire weapons in your home is not what the founding fathers were referring to. Nor was having an unlimited supply of guns and ammo.

How would you know? Were you there?

You've all just decided to interpret it in a way which suits your narrative.

Funny, coming from the guy who literally just stated what the Framers did or didn't mean.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Strategy Strategy

Always Listen to the Talk, but Listen Closer to the Results

--Confucius circa 500bc

🎙☎📺

Remember, I predicted that Trump would give in to the New World Order. He has ties to the Jesuits, and the Jesuits are the Illuminati. Don't forget apollyon statues in Trump Tower. And don't forget ties with the Rothschilds. There is a reason why they are trying to grab guns now. Lots of things going on in the world, the skies, and well, everywhere.

However, for now it's best to watch how things unfold. If Im wrong then im wrong. But I will never forget that the Simpsons predicted his presidency. And now it looks like he might be coming for the guns.

Plot twist