Trump Supports Gun Ban for Fly/Terror List

[Solaris]

I say we just go to a complete ban on guns turn them in and stop this death by a thousands cuts.

I am going to join the pro-choice movement. At least they have the backbone to never give in.

[mojo84]

I say we just go to a complete ban on guns turn them in and stop this death by a thousands cuts.

I am going to join the pro-choice movement. At least they have the backbone to never give in.

Exactly my point right there.

[Redneck_Buddha]

MarketWatch article below is a different approach. Suggest certain well-endowed companies buy gun manufacturers and then shut them down entirely, control what is manufactured, etc. I think board of directors of purchasing company would be held accountable for paying a premium price for ownership of a company they are planning to close down. That plan builds in a loss. What a crazy idea. Major factor is how many shareholders are supportive of the 2nd amendment beyond their desire for a profit.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-i ... 1826640165

There's another word for that approach: Fascism.

[Solaris]

One of the problems I see in this and other threads, if someone isn't 100% in lockstep with what is considered conservative, libertarian or pro-2nd "correct" thinking, people conclude that person is a left-wing nut planted to perpetuate a grand conspiracy to infiltrate the "correct" thinkers and throw the the election to the commie criminal. It is impossible to get 100% buy in on all nuances of an issue buy all folks that support an issue such as liberty, 2nd Amendment, economics, religion etc.

Being so dogmatic that everything is either black or white is shortsighted. For those that want to jump to accusing me of being a "liberal plant", you couldn't be further from the truth. While I base my opinions and decisions on principles, I understand not everything is a,ways black or white and if someone doesn't agree with me 100% they are automatically my enemy. I also don't believe it is best to always be looking for an argument or spoiling for a fight whether it is on a forum or potential civil war.

We need to focus on what unites us and less on finding the things that divide us. If not, we will eventually be referring to one another as "comrade".

What you are missing is for almost 50 years we have given in to the gun grabbers. 20,000 gun laws later, we have nothing to show for it. After we pass this current round of gun control, they will be back for more. Just like they are now back for more after we gave them Brady Law. AWB did not work, yet they are back to re-enact it. Universal background checks, no fly lists, HiCap Bans. 30.06/07 signs, There is no end because the end to them is a complete ban turn them in.

There is a point when you have stand up and point out this stuff does not work! So no more.

I see a lot of folks on this forum OK with more gun control. Are they OK with more gun freedom? How about instead of spending so much time talking about what gun control we are OK with, we talk about what gun freedom we demand! Here is a compromise that directly benefits Texas CHL'ers.

If they want to keep bad guys from getting guns by putting preventing watchlist folks from buying guns, how about they allow good guys to carry guns in all 50 states?

Is anyone against us getting something in return, or di we have to go 100% lockstep with them and nothing for us?

[parabelum]

Funny. I have spent 7 years in a civil war and I will tell you right now that 90%+ of folks who are machismo saying they will defend the right to keep and bear arms with their lives would turn them in with little grumbling if the military came to their doorstep and the choice was turn them in or face a shootout with your family there.
Not a dig at anyone, just a reality check. I've seen it before. Man with puffy chests on their knees begging to be spared. Not a pleasant thing to go through or witness.
What NRA is attempting to do, in my opinion, is to keep this from happening folks. It stinks and I don't like it, but that is what must be done until this Islamofascist garbage is driven out of our Country, that BO imported and continues to import.

I'm not OK with any form of gun control unless it's a careful aim at the target by the way.
I also realize that we have an issue if murderous pig who has been on a watchlist can not only get whatever gun he wants, which makes the rest of us look very bad, but he can also get a security clearance etc. That's an issue.


Then, I also see that an average blimp out there could care less about our 2A rights. Those working in office traps know exactly what I mean.
And from those who care about our 2A rights, what would you think is the % who would put their lives and the lives of their families on the line to defend that right in a bloody civil war?

So what can reasonable minds do to protect their 2A rights, without stepping into a civil war?

NRA has a very good solution, and my guess is that Trump will carry it through.

[mojo84]

This is a very good point parabelum.

And from those who care about our 2A rights, what would you think is the % who would put their lives and the lives of their families on the line to defend that right in a bloody civil war?

Just think how many have openly and proudly stated they are only concerned about themselves and their own and wouldn't take a chance on helping someone else that was in danger. Standing up and risking one's life and that of his/her family members is something I believe very few in the grand scheme of things would actually do. Therefore, boastfully bloviating about fighting in a civil war is disingenuous and makes all pro-gun people look bad.

It's the guys and gals that don't need to boast and act tough that I want standing beside me if things were to go bad.

[ScottDLS]

There are a few who have served in combat here who I think would take up arms again in defense of their rights, if they were really pushed.

Mostly the Marxists know this, and that's why they work incrementally. First the AWB, then the Brady checks, the waiting periods, the federal gun free zones, the watch lists, the special "misdemeanors" that ban you for life, the "mental health" initiatives that let you be stripped of your rights with no due process.

There's NO legitimate reason for ANY federal gun laws, except to incorporate the 2nd amendment to the States that don't have one in their own Constitutions. Since 1968 (or even 1934) we've been losing our right to bear arms step by step to the federal government. I know the NRA has to work the "art of the possible", but it's been proven over and over again that one little compromise leads to more and more.

The goal should be repeal NFA, repeal GCA 1968, repeal Brady Law, repeal Lautenberg restrictions,....

In 1967, in many states a 12 year old could walk into a hardware store and walk out with with a 12ga shotgun and ammo. You could order an M1 carbine through the mail... Mass shootings in schools? Nope. OK you had the UT sniper in '66, but think he was mostly using a bolt action.

New Federal restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists...NO...NO...NO!!!!

[LSUTiger]

There are a few who have served in combat here who I think would take up arms again in defense of their rights, if they were really pushed.

New Federal restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists...NO...NO...NO!!!!

There are a few who haven't served in combat who I think would take up arms again in defense of their rights, if they were really pushed.

[parabelum]

We are dealing with an multidimensional enemy who is using and exploiting our own Constitution against us. They are doing it to the leftists appeasers, just as much as they are doing it to us.

Problem is, this pestilence has been imported like a sickness into this Nation several decades ago, and now it is metastasizing into a full blown pandemic.

One cannot look at the present solely through the lens of yesteryear. It may be that you had rights you no longer have, and which you may never get back, but, you also did not have a sitting US President who is openly playing for the other side and actively facilitating the spread of this disease. You didn't have hordes of Islamofascists who have been purposefully imported here with an agenda.

Took me a long time I confess but I see it clearly now. They WANT you to act. They WANT to provoke you.

Those who served in combat are now civilians and while they are gritty, the oppressor in WH understands that YOU love your family and that as a civilian, at the end of the day, if pushed, you will choose to stand down, for the sake of your family. That's my opinion.

Traitors have placed their bets that you not going to take up arms to defend your rights, and moreover, traitors have figured out that out of those that do, it will be a relative small % in numbers. A figure they can suppress rather easily, using your uprising as a justification to usurp whatever rights you are left with then.

You see, once the ball begins to roll you have no way of knowing which path it will take.

That is why I believe that NRA's / Trump's stance on this is the most reasonable for this time.

Sadist is almost out of office and he will attempt to elicit a response he's been waiting for almost 8 years.

[locke_n_load]

If someone thinks I am a leftist in sheep's clothing, that is out of left field. I simply like to debate the issues and am always in favor of the Constitution. Even though Trump was not my primary or secondary choice, he is now all we have left in order to defeat Hillary. I see him as wishy washy on several subjects and can/will change his mind for votes, but he is still miles above Hillary. I simply don't want any more compromises on our rights. We have compromised enough. No secret courts or lists or year long wait periods because you made a political comment on facebook.
And even though the title of this thread is not the best, you can tell that Trump has probably considered a ban for those on the list according to his tweet. I hope the NRA was/is convincing him otherwise. I listened to his speech yesterday and he did state that if some clubbers would have been armed, it may have helped. I liked what he said about firearms/2A and hope he really believes that, and that he will protect the 2A (all of it) if he gets elected.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Just to be clear, while I despise the idea of subjective membership on a list that causes my rights to be denied without due process, I think the NRA is pursuing the issue in the correct manner. The folks in charge over at NRA have proven themselves wily and worthy of my trust, especially so over the last few years. The media is looking for anything they can use to beat and vilify the NRA (and all gun owners) and one of the components of any good strategy is to deny that opportunity to your enemies. It's important to separate the bad policy itself from the strategy being pursued to block or mitigate that policy.

If Chris or Wayne or Jim are reading this, please know you have the firm support of this Benefactor member.

The 72 hour hold, then go to a judge and block the sale with the same level of evidence as it takes to get an arrest warrant. I believe this is acceptable as it keeps the burden of proof on the government - innocent until proven guilty. Whack jobs on the other side say this is too hard to do - if it's too hard to do then you shouldn't be able to restrict anyone's rights!

[anomie]

Let me ask, if you are in charge and you are approached by someone who is on watch list due to being an ISIS sympathizer who has not yet done anything to break the law per se but he/she wants to come in and buy a gun from you now, what would you do in all honesty?

If this starts happening, the people who will have to deny gun purchases based on someone being on the No Fly/Terror list will never have to make this decision. They will have absolutely *zero* idea why someone is on the no fly/terror list, and may not even know that the denial coming back is because someone is on the no fly list.

If you ask me, no due process == no denial of rights.

[C-dub]

All right ladies and gentlemen, tell me where I'm wrong.

It seems to me that there's no problem with prohibiting people that are on the no-fly list from buying or possessing a gun. It seems that there is a problem with The List. It is unreliable and secretive. If the government went through a court and due process to put someone one that list then would it still be a bad thing?

[Jim Beaux]

Trump is pathetic

[TexasJohnBoy]

All right ladies and gentlemen, tell me where I'm wrong.

It seems to me that there's no problem with prohibiting people that are on the no-fly list from buying or possessing a gun. It seems that there is a problem with The List. It is unreliable and secretive. If the government went through a court and due process to put someone one that list then would it still be a bad thing?

I agree, partially, with you, maybe completely...

The list is a problem. I believe that the processes around it are the problem, due process is needed. If you are to have your rights rescinded, you must have enough evidence for an arrest.

I support the idea of a specified process that gets people on the list, a transparent way to challenge being on the list, and when blocking a sale of a firearm, requiring the attorneys office for whatever relevant jurisdiction go to court and defend their reasoning for blocking a sale. I think a 72 hour window for this to happen is reasonable. That is the window for a delay on current NICS checks.

Keep the burden on the government to prove to a judge that rights should be suspended - this is what has to be done for an arrest warrant, seems logical that the same level should be applied to revocation of other rights. Innocent until proven guilty. Period.