Donald Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, but what about the other mass shooters (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Long Island Rail Road, Sandy Hook, Lancaster County etc, etc, etc) what will be done so these non_acts of terrorism don’t happen again?

Although it’s very hard for me to think of little children (Sandy Hook and Lancaster) being shot to death at school isn’t terrorism.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
OK, but what about the other mass shooters (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Long Island Rail Road, Sandy Hook, Lancaster County etc, etc, etc) what will be done so these non_acts of terrorism don’t happen again?

Although it’s very hard for me to think of little children (Sandy Hook and Lancaster) being shot to death at school isn’t terrorism.
Click to expand...
No reason to think it’s not. It’s just a different kind of terrorism. One that doesn’t fit the current preconceived mold of “terrorism” which requires you to be Muslim.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
OK, but what about the other mass shooters (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Long Island Rail Road, Sandy Hook, Lancaster County etc, etc, etc) what will be done so these non_acts of terrorism don’t happen again?

Although it’s very hard for me to think of little children (Sandy Hook and Lancaster) being shot to death at school isn’t terrorism.
Click to expand...
What would you suggest?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
That’s not true. The NRA is just fine with background checks to stop those who aren’t allowed to have a firearm. Background checks cost money.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately we can’t just administer background checks to those who aren’t allowed to have a firearm, because until the background check is done, you can’t tell if they are allowed to have a firearm. This means good law-abiding citizens who only want guns for legal purposes must undergo background checks. The NRA is for background checks - only if they can be done** instantly**, i.e. without inconveniencing law-abiding gun owners. That is what I mean by zero cost.
 
ucfengr said:
A lot of progressive types act as if all rights should be subordinated to the whims of Muslim extremists. It’s good that there are some organizations that are willing to stand up for civil rights.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. Your words are utterly devoid of meaning and content. They’re just argumentative.

Name one American “progressive” who believes that “all rights should be subordinated to the whims of Muslim extremists.” One.

Really. Do you think that anyone who isn’t a staunch, Trump-supporting, Reagan-worshiping conservative is checking in with their local mullah before taking a position on anything?

If you want to be taken seriously, speak seriously. You don’t like liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call anyone who disagrees with you. Fine. We get it. But if you want any kind of productive dialogue, maybe you ought to snap out of reflexive attack mode.
 
sallybutler said:
The NRA tends to do what the manufacturers want, even when a majority of the membership want something different.
Click to expand...
Which in truth should be the opening question of debate. Does the NRA represent gun manufacturers or gun owners, or both? They make claim to over 4-million members. That said they also take contributions from sponsors and clearly not all manufacturers.

Personally I think this is much more government deep than some would be led to believe. America is a arms dealer. Obama talks guns and sales go up, good for business really.
 
Bill_Martin said:
Revoking rights without due process is a mind-numbingly awful idea.

What if you went to jail because the government put you on a secret list, with secret criteria, without telling you whether you’re on it, without telling you how you can get off of it, and with no legal mechanism for defending yourself?

There’s a reason we have due process before someone’s freedoms can be taken away and it’s a plainly obvious one. To reject it is utterly asinine and I will never support anyone who thinks this nonsense is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I was thinking something along a similar line of thought. As much as I don’t want any terrorist being armed with deadly weapons there have been many people placed on the terrorist watch list and or no fly list that had absolutely no ties to terrorism. It isn’t common knowledge who all are placed on these lists and for what exact reasons. Many are really terrible and dangerous people but others are just being watched or suspected by the government. People get on and off these lists it seems hardly the right mechanism for revoking potentially law abiding citizen their rights to bare arms.

Otherwise, I think felons and others that have dangerous criminal records should be prevented from owning firearms. We currently have many laws to that effect but this country does a poor job of enforcing them.

I like Trump but I think he wrong on this one. I suspect he’ll change his position a bit.
 
ucfengr said:
When was the last time Obama or Clinton asked for the NRA’s advice on keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists? Trump’s willingness to include the NRA in the discussion is a positive step. Everybody, even the NRA wants to keep guns out of terrorists hands.
Click to expand...
Great, what is their plan?
 
I will admit that I go back and forth on the issue of background checks. One part of me knows that there are people who should not have guns (people with anger issues, people who get drunk, people with vision problems, people that think a gun in a purse, backpack, or diaper bag means it will keep them safe, etc). The other part of me hates the idea of background checks and credit checks being used so much because of the control it gives big business and government ( both are unrelenting in what they collect and uncooperative in correcting or deleting).
 
GaryTaylor said:
Which in truth should be the opening question of debate. Does the NRA represent gun manufacturers or gun owners, or both? They make claim to over 4-million members. That said they also take contributions from sponsors and clearly not all manufacturers.

Personally I think this is much more government deep than some would be led to believe. America is a arms dealer. Obama talks guns and sales go up, good for business really.
Click to expand...
Maybe the gun manufacturers have secretly bought Obama out 😛
 
Crossbones said:
Great, what is their plan?
Click to expand...
The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Click to expand...
Whats the democrats plan?
Hillary: People Under FBI Investigation Should Lose Constitutional Rights
Click to expand...
Filibuster via Murphy-CT with no clear plan.
 
BubaBob said:
I was thinking something along a similar line of thought. As much as I don’t want any terrorist being armed with deadly weapons there have been many people placed on the terrorist watch list and or no fly list that had absolutely no ties to terrorism. It isn’t common knowledge who all are placed on these lists and for what exact reasons. Many are really terrible and dangerous people but others are just being watched or suspected by the government. People get on and off these lists it seems hardly the right mechanism for revoking potentially law abiding citizen their rights to bare arms.

Otherwise, I think felons and others that have dangerous criminal records should be prevented from owning firearms. We currently have many laws to that effect but this country does a poor job of enforcing them.

I like Trump but I think he wrong on this one. I suspect he’ll change his position a bit.
Click to expand...
What does it matter if they have automatic weapons or not? Nobody should have automatic weapons including terrorists or suspected terrorists. Better safe than sorry.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.
Click to expand...
Great. So, no sales without checking in a national database to ensure that the buyer is not on the terrorist watch list. That should include all sales including private sales and it’ll work well.
 
Great, what is their plan?
Click to expand...
In fact you can even turn on C-Span 2 and listen to Murphy. There is no changing the 2nd amendment, no one not even the President can change this. The only limitation would be the terrorist watch list

What you will hear in fact is the same thinking as above with the NRA.
 
Crossbones said:
Great, what is their plan?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what their plan is. You could ask them if you care to. I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you. I think your problem with it will be that it places a lot of emphasis on not curtailing the civil rights of law abiding citizens, and more on identifying actual terrorists, but that’s just a guess.
 
ucfengr said:
I don’t know what their plan is. You could ask them if you care to. I’m sure they’d be happy to tell you. I think your problem with it will be that it places a lot of emphasis on not curtailing the civil rights of law abiding citizens, and more on identifying actual terrorists, but that’s just a guess.
Click to expand...
It’s alright. Gary Taylor posted their plan and I think the idea of ensuring that no sales are made to people on the terrorist watch list is good. As long as it involves all sales including private sales, I think that’s great. Should be able to get that through even this Congress.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
What does it matter if they have automatic weapons or not? Nobody should have automatic weapons including terrorists or suspected terrorists. Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about limiting the ban to just automatic weapons? The proposal is an outright ban of any firearm purshase to anyone on the terrorist watch list. However as the article States many such people who have purchased firearms in the past have passed an FBI background check. It makes me think the “list” is a bit arbitrary. I am for thorough background checks but limiting sale of firearm based “just” on the terrorist watch list is going to far.
 
BubaBob said:
Who said anything about limiting the ban to just automatic weapons? The proposal is an outright ban of any firearm purshase to anyone on the terrorist watch list. However as the article States many such people who have purchased firearms in the past have passed an FBI background check. It makes me think the “list” is a bit arbitrary. I am for thorough background checks but limiting sale of firearm based “just” on the terrorist watch list is going to far.
Click to expand...
According to Gary, that is the NRA plan (those on the terrorist watch list cannot buy arms), which sounds good to me. Are you against the NRA plan?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top