Active Shooter El Paso Texas August 3rd 2019

His sons are hunters and shooters. Let's hope they have some influence.

Watch your English! Hunters are fine. They can walk around with BBs and hunt squirrels. But shooters? Have you lost your mind already? Don't you know what the word shooter means today? Replace it with sportsman. Sportsmen will be fine with BBs aiming at paper targets.

His sons and great majority of our nation would not support anything else. There goes 2A!
 
Really weird that last week we had a teen shoot up a Walmart he worked in or did work in, now we get another Walmart shooting.

Was thinking this too, especially when it's a multiple shooter situation. Don't want to jump to conclusions, but if by tomorrow we don't get the names of the shooters or a motive, we can assume their social media is being scrubbed as we speak.

We're already there. It's terrible, but it's not like this hasn't happened often enough for us to become use to these shootings.

Every presidential election cycle they ramp it up. It'll settle down again around spring of 2021 and start again four years from now.
 
Bingo....he's mistakenly looking to the NRA for guidance and cover.....

But to his credit he has stopped making knee jerk comments and appears to be listening to his son(s) more......

If trump backs away from his clearly stated positions in the link below he'll lose the 2020 election

Donald Trump Archives | NY Firearms | Dedicated to the ownership, laws, and politics of firearms and weapons in New York State.

He will not! He knows very well that his base will take some beating but it will not vote for Ghost of Obama instead.
 
On one hand you're trying to tell us that trump is responsible for red flag laws

On the other hand you tell us it doesnt matter that it hasnt happened at the federal level......he's somehow responsible for it happening at the STATE level.....

Is global warming trumps fault too?
It looks like you're having a comprehension problem. When Trump said take the guns first, due process later it led to a flurry of red flag laws being introduced and or passed at the state level. His comments certainly encouraged and emboldened the anti-gun crowd. He's not responsible for it on the federal level cause the bill isn't in front of him but I'm pretty sure he'll sign it if it does get in front of him. We're not talking about global warming. I didn't realize you were such a Trump supporter that you're blind to the effect his actions and words have had towards infringements on the 2A
 
What Trump should say when these events happen is this: I'm not going to blame or hold accountable the tens of millions of gun owners that safely and responsibly use guns every day for the acts of a terrorist or madman. These types of guns have been around for over a century but these events have only been occurring for about the past 30yrs. It's time to stop blaming the gun and place the blame where it belongs on the perpetrator. We need to look at what has changed in our society that is leading these people to commit these acts. We need to get rid of gun free zones which only make these acts easier to carry out and we need to allow people to protect and defend themselves.
 
What you dont comprehend is that Trump's passing comment had no bearing on the bills that dems already had drafted/submitted
Strange that that's when many of the bills started moving forward much faster because not only did they have the support of their base but now even the President thought it was a good idea. Let's see at 10am how much he protects and defends the 2A or if he'll be supporting more infringements.
 
What will happen is that voter enthusiasm in the base will plummet and people just wont turn out to vote at all.
I think this is why Trump won in the first place I think the "Burnie" loyalist just stayed home vs voting for HC.

What people are missing is this has nothing to do with guns but hate and evil and sickness. Im not so sure these shootings are .GOV planned.

Most seemed to be carried out out by angry and often drugged people.
most shooters seem to come from shitty child hoods, have mental health issues and they all come to a conclusion that what they are going to do IS the right thing to do in their heads.

Now its just a matter of how the evil, twisted, sick murderer wants to carry out his plan.
Be it guns, cars, bombs ect ect?

In a way our own government carries out mass murder on a continuous level. Seems launching drone rockets into villages is ok....in the name of peace and terrorism.

crazy shit going on for sure.

I think the first step is to just minimize the media attention. I think this does work to at least limit the copy cat types out there.

as long as we are reporting "mass" shootings I would like to have them reported as such. Gang shootings, revenge, hate ect ect.

heck im just now hearing about the july 6th shooting in boston where 6 people where shot at a party....?
Funny the media reports mass shootings but small scale daily killings and shootings go almost un heard of. Maybe its because they dont want the public to know just how little control they have over individuals.
 
Last edited:
He actually said at the first NRA convention that the days of infringing on the 2nd amendment are over. So much for his words there. Wake up he is not a supporter or defender of the 2A. He is another one of those I support the 2nd amendment BUT types. He should not be talking about gun control at all. Just criminal control and mental health and societal issues.
 
What will happen is that voter enthusiasm in the base will plummet and people just wont turn out to vote at all.

Likely.

But he just might be delusional enough to think he can offset that if he gives away enough to the left.

“Rapid due process,” spoken by any president, should worry anyone.
 
Nobody is claiming that he's the most pro 2a president we've ever had

But at the same time he's the only one in recent years who has actually committed to defending RKBA.....
How has he committed to defending the RKBA? By signing the bump stock bill which can and most likely will be used to ban anything that helps to increase the rate of fire. By appointing an AG and nominating the head of ATF that have expressed support for infringements. His judges might be okay but I won't hold my breath. If I remember correctly Gorsuch has made a statement that the 2A should not be infringed upon lightly but that's not correct. It should not be infringed upon at all. The BOR is a restriction on government.
 
We already know that the bump stock shenanigans will not hold up in court......this has been explained previously
Maybe not but lately the SCOTUS has tended to decline 2A cases and let the lower court rulings stand.
 
Red Flag law challenges are not going to be 2A cases per se

They are 4th/5th amendment transgressons at the fed level and vary from state to state wrt state constitutions

Red Flag laws are generally a profound violation of multiple sections of the NH Constitution
I learned a long time ago that government including the judicial branch doesn't abide by the constitution unless it suits them and that they make up and reinterpret the amendments as they see fit. Hell they don't even understand what the words shall not be infringed mean and yet you think they'll do the right thing? Sorry but I've got too many knife wounds in my back to trust that they'll do the right thing.
 
Trump isnt one to go back on his word
When he said the day of infringements were over and then signed the bump stock ban. That's an infringement and going back on his word.
The bump stock ban if it would only affect bump stocks would be one thing but it can be used to ban anything that increases the rate of fire.
 
So how exactly did Heller and subsequent related decisions "Suit" the judicial branch?
It suits the judicial branch because they all support infringements and Heller still allows infringements.
I don't have Heller in front of me but if I remember Scalia said something to the effect that banning weapons capable of mass destruction was okay and so the courts consider the AR and others like it to be included in his ruling.
I've not seen Heller or McDonald stop gun control.
 
The NRA should never have come out in support of any infringements. The ATF had ruled under Obama that they were legal and they should not have been looked at again but they were because of Trump and the NRA.
The video says what I've been saying. He ends it with saying maybe it's time for a change of leadership at the NRA.
 
it was already codified into law
These people make and break the law as they see fit. Lots of things are codified into law but they're not followed by government. The COTUS is the supreme law of the land and they violate it with impunity.
 
But none of that supports the notion that the supreme court took the cases in question because it "Suited" them as you put it
They choose whether to grant cert or not to the cases as they see fit.
Heller etc never suited/benefited the supreme court in any way, shape or form
It got many gun owners off their back and made them look like they care. At least for a little while.
They took the case imho because they couldnt continue to resist incorporation of quite literally every other right explicitly guaranteed in the constitution while continueing to exclude 2A.......

The case that Levy and co presented to the supreme court was too strong for the court to deny taking
They still denied the 2A in their ruling. Read the first part under Gun rights can be restricted: Antonin Scalia on Gun Control Sounds like they don't understand the words: "Shall not be infringed"
 
Nobody is claiming that he's the most pro 2a president we've ever had

Were there any?

But at the same time he's the only one in recent years who has actually committed to defending RKBA.....

The era of modern gun legislation I will say began in 1994 with the AWB. When it expired in 2004, there was not much in the way of federal legislation that a president would have had any impact on. As far as defending RKBA, no president faced the challenges against it until now.
 
None of that is consistent with your assertion that the court had to take the case in order to infringe on 2A
Where is my assertion that the court had to take the case?
The courts were ALREADY outright DENYING 2A
This was in DC that they were.
But the fact that it got RKBA supporters enguaged has no bearing on whether taking/rejected the case suited the court
Tell me do you have any inside information to support this claim?
So what you're saying is that the court has pretty much treated 2A like they have every other right subject to incorporation..........which was my point as to why they took Heller in the first point
[/QUOTE]
CA. MA. NJ. NY and some others didn't get the memo on incorporation. What I'm saying is that the courts including SCOTUS support infringements upon the 2A. There is something that would have been better than incorporation at the time of Heller & or McDonald but I forget what it is called. I'll have to see if I can find what it was.
It's obvious that you continue to have faith in a system which has consistently screwed gun owners over. I'll remain skeptical.
 
You stated a earlier today that scotus had to take the case in order to infringe on RKBA (paraphrased).....I previously pointed out that wasnt true because the courts were already being shitbags
Show me where I said they had to take the case. I said that they choose the cases they take I didn't say anything about them having to take the case. You seem to like to write your own and incorrect interpretation of what I say.
Yes, and DC had been violating peoples rights for decades along with a bunch of other states/cities
Yes and it's still pretty much unrecognized by those states.
Please go back and read the thread/comment.......they are unrelated to one another
That response was to your comment:
But the fact that it got RKBA supporters enguaged has no bearing on whether taking/rejected the case suited the court
so it's related to your comment.
This is where you're mistaken
Not mistaken at all. You continue to argue for those that have infringed upon our rights before and that continue to do so to this day.
The only options we have are to be vocal and/or support article V or both
Yes being vocal as much as we can is great but unfortunately the many forms of media for the large part silence our voices and the constitution doesn't need to be amended.It needs to be followed as law because it is law. In places like MA it doesn't matter how loud your voice is, the govt. just ignores it so it's highly unlikely that voices will work unless the majority of people wake up and realize that big government is not the answer.
 
The only two things in our favor at all right now is Trump is running for re-election and even a couple of million of pissed off gun owners could effect it and the NRA is well aware that they are standing on the edge of a cliff with one foot on a banana peel.
 
What you suppose President HR Clinton would be doing right now?

Not taking sides or wasting time. This is the hand we've been dealt. How do we play it?
 
Back
Top Bottom