Biggest Mistake EVER, President Trump. EVER.

Original content | 3/11/2018 | By Laz A. Mataz

[spacejunkie2001]

why is banning ANY guns an option for you? Point out where the gun is to blame for ANY of these shootings? I’m fairly certain you’re on the wrong site dude, as you are spewing solidly liberal viewpoints.

[LS]

I disagree on crew served. There are good conservative gun historians who pretty much agree that the term “bear arms” was specifically to delineate individually-operated weapons.

At the time, ALL cannon were publicly held by townships. So, no, that is not what is the most commonly accepted (even in English Whig heritage) definition of “bear arms.”

[Blue Turtle]

Nobody is shredding civil rights here. School shootings like we’ve been seeing have never been like this. This can’t happen in our schools. Armed guards, conceal carry...fine. Raising the age limit to purchase certain guns seems reasonable. Also, mental health data base... and I am well aware of the 2nd amendment and your arguments. I am also aware there may be issues with the police department and Obama’s promise program. Trump’s plan is sensible.

[dynoman]

Where’s the EO, I want to read it and haven’t been able to find it.

[dynoman]

“Trump banned bump stocks pretty much by Executive Order. “

“However, by using his Executive Order to ban bump-stocks as machine guns”

Not accurate. There is no EO banning bump stocks.

Breaking: DOJ Reclassifies Bump Fire Stocks as Machine Guns
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3638742/posts

[dynoman]

There was no EO banning bump stocks. Are you just trying to find out if people will actually check?

[DungeonMaster]

That's why I posted on a Sunday afternoon.

I had a great deal on a purchase of a Ruger AR15, $200 scope, 5 mags and a hardcase last week. Sadly, it fell through.

Politics, more than anything else, has me in the market.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Yes, I accidentally typoed the wrong date for GCA 1968.

[Lazamataz]

A good friend and I were on Freepmail, and he gave me his opinion that bumpstocks made firearms full automatic -- thus, illegal. My response:

"There is only one flaw to your argument that I can see: Bumpstocks technically, by the definition in the Federal Register, do not make a firearm an automatic.

"The only real legal remedy I can see are these:

"1) Redefine automatic firearm in the Federal Register, and this is a very bad option, since antigunners can introduce all sorts of mischief and mayhem therein. It is the original 'slippery slope'.

"2) Create a bill in the House that calls out all manner of aftermarket devices, by function (slidefiring, crank triggers, binary triggers, et. al.), and make those illegal. Get it through the Senate, back through the House, and Trump signs. This is my preferred option, and it has to happen quick, in case Democrats seize either organ of state."

[JamesP81]

Nobody is shredding civil rights here.

Wrong. In this country, it is not legal to write regulations with force of law that are in conflict with said law. Donald Trump has ordered that that be done. If Obama had ordered that, we'd be melting down over it, but suddenly now it's ok that an R did it? Donald Trump is not entitled to my loyalty or support. He receives those when he does as he should, and gets the opposite when he does, well, what he's doing now.

School shootings like we’ve been seeing have never been like this.

Wrong.

Armed guards, conceal carry...fine.

I'll agree to it. The current FL law that does this is worded so that it will not be done in one single school district in the entire state.

Raising the age limit to purchase certain guns seems reasonable.

No. There are two serious problems with this. First of all, you have to define "certain guns." This is a way to slip a legal definition of the made up term "assault weapons" back into federal law. No way that could ever screw anything up, right? Second, raising the age means that we, as a society, now say that at 18 you can be drafted against your will and force to fight, kill, and die for your country. I'll let you figure out what's wrong with that.

Also, mental health data base... and I am well aware of the 2nd amendment and your arguments.

Well apparently not, because the way you cavalierly dismiss the danger suggests you either don't understand the seriousness of that danger, or you just don't care. There is already a mechanism in place to have a person adjudicated mentally defective, which enters them as a prohibited person in NICS. Beyond that...who defines "mentally ill?" Because if you let the government define that, the government will define mentally ill as "everyone who wants to buy a gun" or "all persons who are against granting special privileges for trans people" or "people who go to churches that teach the gospel of Jesus Christ." Or maybe we will just sayong anyone who ever took an anti-depressant in the past, regardless of whether it was prescribed for depression or not, is now a prohibited person. Or maybe we will declare people who go to a psychologist for marriage counseling to be mentally ill prohibited persons. I'm sure there's no chance people would just stop going to their doctors if something like that were to happen, right?

In point of fact, the recently enacted Florida law lists as one of its conditions to issue an emergency order to confiscate someone's firearms, without due process, is if someone has purchased firearms or ammunition recently. I wonder how that's going to work out in liberal jurisdictions where the Sheriffs and Police Chiefs think all gun owners are crazy, or think like BLM does and believes that the NRA is a, and I quote, "terrorist organization."

I am also aware there may be issues with the police department and Obama’s promise program.

The problems there are obvious and are the proximate cause of the government's failure in this matter. Nothing will be done about now, however, because King Trump has decided gun control is the answer. The answer, in his world, is to write and enforce laws against people who committed no crime that would not have stopped the event that started this slide into stupidity.

Trump’s plan is sensible.

Trump's plan is a massive "read my lips, no new taxes" screw up that's going to cost him. Trump's plan is to ignore the law and rule by fiat like Obama did. Trump's plan to ban bump stocks will lead directly to banning all semi autos period once he figures out that you can bump fire a semi auto with no special bump stock at all. Hopefully he spends all his time on Twitter and not youtube.

This is all about shredding civil rights and ignoring the rule of law, top to bottom. And I'm going to tell you this straight up. If my fellow conservatives are OK with throwing some of my concerns under the bus, I'm very quickly going to find out that I'm OK with doing the same right back. Ban bump stocks? In that case, the bakery has to bake the cake whether they like it or not. Raise the age to 21 for 'certain firearms?' Then Hobby Lobby had better provide health insurance that covers those morning after pills. Raise taxes on firearms and ammunition? Raise taxes on the "rich". Institute waiting periods on firearms purchases? We'll pass some hate speech codes then, since we don't want anyone's feelings hurt. Ban standard capacity firearm magazines? Maybe we will just legalize all drugs.

I am not playing around on this. I have fought for this cause for too long to have it pissed away by people who are too hard headed to understand the important details of the matter.

I have faithfully fought for all conservative causes my entire life, not just the 2A because I believe in them. Throw my 2A cause under the bus when it gets convenient for you and you are quickly going to find yourself short on allies, and the only thing those who care about the 2A need to do to make all that horrible stuff I posted above happen is...nothing.

So go ahead and crap on gun owners. We'll go fishing on election day and then we all get to take the ride, and not just some of us.

If that seems harsh, it's because it's a product of the harsh times we live in. I don't want to do this. I will if Trump and pro-gun control quasi-conservatives force the issue.

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. --Benjamin Franklin.

I much prefer that we hang together.

[JamesP81]

#2 is the legally correct route, and there’s also no way to write it without it catching things it wasn’t intended to. Unintended consequences on that one will destroy much of what we have left.

The answer is no. Not. One. More. Inch.

[Pollster1]

“The only real legal remedy I can see are these:

“1) Redefine automatic firearm in the Federal Register . . .

“2) Create a bill in the House that calls out all manner of aftermarket devices, by function (slidefiring, crank triggers, binary triggers, et. al.), and make those illegal . . .

You left one option out:

3) Repeal all federal firearms laws other than the “supreme law of the land” - the Constitution, and in particular the Second Amendment. Clarify the Second Amendment through legislation forbidding the states from infringing on that fundamental, God-given human right.

[nitzy]

It means the first Democrat who gets elected will ban ALL SEMIAUTOS by Executive Order. All they have to do, with this precedent, is show someone firing a semi-auto in a bump-fire method using a pants belt-loop. Voila: It's a full-auto. Therefore, it can be EO'd away.

I think you made an error here....

If the scenarios were to be consistent they would ban belt loops not semi-autos.

[Sir_Ed]

Or, don’t give them an inch, knowing that if they take an inch they’ll go for a mile.

And you’re right, this was a BAD decision on Trump’s part. Making the rate of fire illegal by EO means they can go after forward grips, match triggers, lighter springs, rapid reloading devices such as moon clips, dual-mag clips and speedstocks and saddle shell carriers for shotguns.

Just an absolutely horrendous decision on Trump’s part and one which we’ll rue when the Dems get back in power.

Ed

[Pajamajan]

Bookmark

[SJackson]

Probably best to leave it to the ATF, now under Donald Trump, rather than an “executive order”, which was not the case in the past. The ATF declared them illegal under GWB, interestingly reversed themselves under Obama. Conversion of a semi auto to fully auto, and parts that do such are already illegal. My understanding is that the issue here is whether a bump stock is a part. In my mind it probably is, but I’d probably rather stick with the existing rule than legislate anew. Part can be an expansive term, particularly if legislation or even an executive order broadens it to parts which can be modified. Like trigger assemblies

[usconservative]

All I'll say is:

From My Cold Dead Hands.

Don't think I need to say any more.

[Blue Turtle]

Interesting take: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/?utm_source=atlfb

[sipow]

Those who don’t support our great President are the true traitors

[Delta 21]

No. Thats a highly uninformed and ignorant take.

If I shoot you in the liver at close range with my .338 Lapua it will probably blow your body mostly in half. .50 BMG at close range? Pieces is parts after the pink mist settles.

No point in the story other than the yahoo writing it feels safer working on gang bangers shot with 9mms rather than kids shot with AR-15s. AR-15s are bad and thats just stupid.