Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

61 - 72 of 72 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
Pretty sure president Trump has said on a few occasions banning guns or gun control would be unconstitutional @SRWillis... But then he goes and signs legislation banning bump stocks. Not that i think it's a huge loss not having bump stocks, but i think it was more of a move to placate the rabid left moreso then an attack on our rights.
He may have said it, and I know when he was campaigning he said gun bans etc wasn't the way to go, so to speak. But now, he seems to be on the fence, talking about universal background checks (the road to registration, then confiscation) and Red Flag laws, which eliminates due process and presumption of innocence. There's been reports he's backing off of them, but I know Ivanka is pushing for them, so it remains to be seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
He doesn't agree with everything Ivanka wants @SRWillis President Trump is a Wiley one. He totally backed away from red flag laws going on the record and saying not a good option. He'll set Ivanka right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
He doesn't agree with everything Ivanka wants @SRWillis President Trump is a Wiley one. He totally backed away from red flag laws going on the record and saying not a good option. He'll set Ivanka right.
Hope you're right on the Red Flag laws and setting Ivanka right. What about background checks?

We have our Benedict governor here in Ohio trying to shove Red Flag laws and universal background checks and who-knows-what else down our throats. He's supposedly and R, but I couldn't vote for him because I still remember he was all for the so-called Assault Weapons ban in 94 when he was our R Senator in D.C. He seemed to be a decent AG in Ohio after that, but I couldn't trust him. He even went on CNN a night or two ago and said he's been working on them for a while. We had one pro-gun group endorse him, but another group hounded him on the campaign trail trying to get him to fill out their questionnaire, but he wouldn't do it. Sorry for the rant, but it makes me sick when a supposed Conservative is actually a Progressive and would just as soon use the Constitution as toilet paper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
The president doesn't want to expand background checks @SRWillis he just wants to close loopholes in the existing system that allow guns to fall in the wrong hands such as penalizing agencies that don't submit proper info to background check agencies.. but he wouldn't expend on exactly what other loopholes he wants to agree but he's expected to present solutions to Congress when they return in September.
We have background checks, but there are loopholes in the background checks. That’s what I spoke to the NRA about yesterday,” he said. “They want to get rid of the loopholes as well as I do. At the same time, I don’t want to take away people’s Second Amendment rights.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/21/donald-trump-gun-background-checks-1470901 the problem isn't lack of laws, the problem is lack of enforcing the existing laws. Adding more laws won't fix that.

I totally feel ur pain about your Benedict representative... Republicans who are Republicans in name only earn a different R title... Rhino... Like i said all these Congress members want all the authority with none of the accountability... There's only a small handful who actually uphold their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, like Dan Crenshaw the vast majority are career politicians who probably haven't even read the Constitution let alone defended it... They forget they are public servants, they think they are "leaders" instead of Representatives and show us exactly why we need term limits.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
34,862 Posts
There's another feature of our background checks I've heard talk about over the years that I'd really like to see finally made to happen and it's ridicules that it's still an issue in this day and age and a special frustration for us WA residents who are forced to use them for private sales... speed. There's no reason for a background check to take more than 10-15 minutes with today's technology and that's being quite generous, imo. Speedier checks would improve the peoples satisfaction of the entire process without adding or taking away anything in the current system. It would make for faster submissions too, eliminating lots of excuses. It would basically wrap up the so-called gun-show loop-hole, allowing a long time tradition to carry on, unimpeded with burdensome wait times that choke the life out of small businesses, collectors and regular, law abiding, gun enthusiasts and the community they've assembled over generations.

Don't get me wrong... I've got all the basic concerns about our HIPPA rights, database's and all that but let's face it, holding the line is about the best we can hope for at this point in our history, so refining and improving what we have... as noted, making the best of the laws we have without making more is about the only compromise I can/will support.

Also... I've come to the conclusion with Trump that it's best to see what he actually makes happen, more so than what he says. He's probably the most harassed POTUS in our history, both here and abroad. He asks for some of it, to be sure... but it's gone far beyond that. So he's trollin'. He's a business man and the art of the deal, appears to be some "bait and switch" stuff with this guy. He punches back and as annoying as his personality can be, I can appreciate not backing down or kowtowing to all the negativity of the "Orange man bad" crowd and all their insane bullsh!t.
I never cared for the guy, as an individual but I voted for him and I'd do it again... and very likely will, unless the Libertarian party manages to pull a superstar out of their ass. So far, the Dems really don't appear to be a threat in the way that mega-bitch was in 2016 and that frees me up to vote my conscious again, rather than just trying to keep some commie out of the white house and ending up more satisfied than I'd have ever expected. He's far from perfect but he's a lot better than I expected and that's one of the more gratifying things I've ever been able to say when it comes to politics.


That said... I'm still not sure it can happen. In my experience, high end computer systems are not nearly as well developed, secure and robust as most of us would think or are regularly led to believe. Most of us have experienced this to one degree or another but the narrative overwhelms our ignorance and inexperience and we let 'em slide as anomalies, glitches or just exceptions to the rule. Then you have to think about AI and how that can affect the system, as it's just on the horizon and the fact of the matter is... we aren't the only ones out there developing AI systems. On top of that... there's no guarantee and a very considerable likelihood that nobody will be able to truly control an AI system, ours or anyone else's. What happens when these incredibly large and detailed and sensitive database become open playtoys to systems we can't even comprehend how to secure against.

It's late. Guess I should find my tinfoil nightcap and hit the sack. :tinfoil :toothless
 

·
Ford-a-Holic
Joined
·
3,918 Posts
Like I said, we have been dealing with background checks for years here in MA and it really is not a big deal. Background checks are done online in gun shop while you wait; usually about 5-10 minutes. They are not required for private sales; all that is required is both parties have a LTC (license to carry) and fill out the appropriate form.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
...wrap up the so-called gun-show loop-hole, allowing a long time tradition to carry on, unimpeded with burdensome wait times that choke the life out of small businesses, collectors and regular, law abiding, gun enthusiasts and the community they've assembled over generations.

The so-called gun-show loop-hole is just another step the Liberty-hating crowd wants to take in the march to eliminating guns in the hands of citizens. All transactions from a FFL at a gun show must go through a background check, just like if you would go to their shop. The gun control crowd wants to make transactions between private citizens do the same.

There is no evidence that criminals buy their firearms this way, and even if a few do, this would not stop them from acquiring them on the street; it's just more feel-good legislation that restricts law-abiding citizens. I've read what the background checks of 'transactions' between private citizens entails in your state and I want nothing to do with it. From what I understand, you can't even legally loan a gun to someone without a background check.

It is supposedly illegal for the gov't to keep a record of firearm transactions, but do you think that means anything to them? If anyone thinks the they are not compiling registration list, I would say they are naive and too trusting of the leviathan in D.C.

Background checks and the FFL forms are de-facto registration, and registration eventually leads to confiscation. Another problem with all these laws are that they are selectively enforced, and can be used to ruin someone's life if someone in power doesn't like your views or someone who doesn't like you reports you for an alleged violation.

Also... I've come to the conclusion with Trump that it's best to see what he actually makes happen, more so than what he says. He's probably the most harassed POTUS in our history, both here and abroad. He asks for some of it, to be sure... but it's gone far beyond that. So he's trollin'. He's a business man and the art of the deal, appears to be some "bait and switch" stuff with this guy. He punches back and as annoying as his personality can be, I can appreciate not backing down or kowtowing to all the negativity of the "Orange man bad" crowd and all their insane bullsh!t.
I never cared for the guy, as an individual but I voted for him and I'd do it again... and very likely will, unless the Libertarian party manages to pull a superstar out of their ass. So far, the Dems really don't appear to be a threat in the way that mega-bitch was in 2016 and that frees me up to vote my conscious again, rather than just trying to keep some commie out of the white house and ending up more satisfied than I'd have ever expected. He's far from perfect but he's a lot better than I expected and that's one of the more gratifying things I've ever been able to say when it comes to politics.
I agree with your take on Trump, and I will vote for him again - unless he goes forward with more gun control. I didn't care for his ban on bump stocks. I don't have any or had any desire for one, but it was an infringement on our rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. If he follows through with more gun control, he will not get my vote.
 

·
Bronco Snob
Joined
·
1,923 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
See, IMO, this is the problem....look where this debate has gone. We are talikng about red flag laws, background checks and bump stocks when most of us agree that guns are not the issue. The feckless Republicans lost this battle when the let the Democrats set the premise of the argument.

Great read : https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
Most elected Rs won't stand up for us, that's why we have to. IF they would stand against those who would control every aspect of our lives, we could just thank them for doing their job and go on about our lives. But instead, like in the case of our supposedly R career idiot politician governor here in Ohio, who 'can't let a crises go to waste' to promote his agenda, we have to fight both sides to remain (relatively) free.

That was a great read BTW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
My wife had a good take on it. If you wake up and decide that you want to kill a bunch of people, you have a mental problem of some sort.
 
61 - 72 of 72 Posts
Top