Donald Trump running for president

Invalid Link Removed

Disgusting.
He didn't let reporters in, but shot this video.

Talk about political points. Total propaganda.
It's a Trump campaign commercial.

Note: None of the patents are in the video. Also, no El Paso patients agreed to meet with him.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Like the way the NSA was only going to peek in on bad guys? Or the Patriot Act was about protecting us? I'm like the first person on here to speak up against conspiracy theory crap, but it won't take very much to manipulate the hell out of this. Oh we took your gun, but don't worry, you'll get it back after court. You can't afford to go to court? Guess we're keeping your gun.
Click to expand...

Ummm, whaa? Why would they take the gun before going to court to see if you can handle your own finances? That same slippery slope mentality could be applied to any restriction.
 
nostrum420 said:
Ummm, whaa? Why would they take the gun before going to court to see if you can handle your own finances? That same slippery slope mentality could be applied to any restriction.
Click to expand...

Because of Red Flag laws already passed in certain states and now Dump wants this enforced by the Fed nationwide.

Im not claiming specifics of the law but thats the trend, it most definitely wont stop there and government hates letting a "good crisis go to waste."

It’s all about pre-crimes and expanding secret courts with no jury or proper constitutional due process.
 
ax1 said:
Because of Red Flag laws already passed in certain states and now Dump wants this enforced by the Fed nationwide.

Im not claiming specifics of the law but thats the trend, it most definitely wont stop there and government hates letting a "good crisis go to waste."

It’s all about pre-crimes and expanding secret courts with no jury or proper constitutional due process.
Click to expand...

This seems like a lot of paranoia considering we're discussing stopping someone so mentally ill they can't be trusted with a dollar of their own money from buying a gun.
 
nostrum420 said:
This seems like a lot of paranoia considering we're discussing stopping someone so mentally ill they can't be trusted with a dollar of their own money from buying a gun.
Click to expand...

So let proper due process happen in front of a judge and jury, make the case and prove it. You cant just allow governments to freely charge people with a crime because government's discretion tells them someone may be dangerous. If there is a legitimate threat such as found online, get a warrant and make an arrest of course.

Empowering government to act on pre-crimes is a dangerous territory nobody should take lightly as it is a direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment. Once you start compromising everyone's rights and proper safeguards its close to impossible to get them back.

I know you care though, this isnt personal against your beliefs so say what you gotta say and we can debate :)
 
ax1 said:
So let proper due process happen in front of a judge and jury, make the case and prove it. You cant just allow governments to freely charge people with a crime because government's discretion tells them someone may be dangerous. If there is a legitimate threat such as found online, get a warrant and make an arrest of course.

Empowering government to act on pre-crimes is a dangerous territory nobody should take lightly as it is a direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amendment. Once you start compromising everyone's rights and proper safeguards its close to impossible to get them back.

I know you care though, this isnt personal against your beliefs so say what you gotta say and we can debate :)
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think that's not the case in the situation we've been discussing. You have to be declared, by a judge, mentally incompetent to handle your own finances.

In the other part of the provision the individual has to say they are so mentally ill that they need SS benefits to survive because they cannot hold down a job.
 
nostrum420 said:
Ummm, whaa? Why would they take the gun before going to court to see if you can handle your own finances? That same slippery slope mentality could be applied to any restriction.
Click to expand...

Who said the threshold is ability to control finances? Mental illness runs the spectrum form mild depression to severe schizophrenia and includes a lot of people who have been misdiagnosed. I agree the same slippery slope mentality can be used like that and is often used to confuse the issue so that people simply stop talking about it until the next time there is a tragedy and then rinse, repeat. I'm not arguing with you on what the intention of the law will be. I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to exploit the hell out of it based on what already happens with insurance companies and any government agency that bases their qualifications on medical history.

How about this scenario. Somebody gets pulled in for something minor, but the arresting officer thinks you seem a little "agitated". They're going to let you off with a warning, but they just want you to talk to this counselor to make sure you're not going to be a danger to yourself (because they really care about you!). Based on this 10 question checklist you're now on record as anxious and a little paranoid.
 
nostrum420 said:
I don't understand why you think that's not the case in the situation we've been discussing. You have to be declared, by a judge, mentally incompetent to handle your own finances.

In the other part of the provision the individual has to say they are so mentally ill that they need SS benefits to survive because they cannot hold down a job.
Click to expand...

You're using criteria for when the government needs to give you something. They won't use the same criteria for when they want to take something.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You're using criteria for when the government needs to give you something. They won't use the same criteria for when they want to take something.
Click to expand...

I've been speaking within the context of the Obama rule that Trump rolled back. It had two very specific provisions that I don't think could be very easily misused.

I agree that not everyone who's ever taken an SSRI or something should be banned but that's not what we're talking about here.
 
nostrum420 said:
I don't understand why you think that's not the case in the situation we've been discussing. You have to be declared, by a judge, mentally incompetent to handle your own finances.

In the other part of the provision the individual has to say they are so mentally ill that they need SS benefits to survive because they cannot hold down a job.
Click to expand...

Stripping someone’s constitutional rights should be judged by ones peers, not a dictator. But it’s not just that...

In New York all it takes is a relative or “friend” to accuse one he is dangerous, simply say they talked about killing or even suicide and it’s bought to a judge by police and they are stripped. That’s not proper due process. It’s easily can be abused, not just by government but your acquaintances. Think pill popping ex girlfriend lol!
 
nostrum420 said:
I've been speaking within the context of the Obama rule that Trump rolled back. It had two very specific provisions that I don't think could be very easily misused.

I agree that not everyone who's ever taken an SSRI or something should be banned but that's not what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify I’m not completely familiar with the Obama rule yet but I’m taking about not only what multiple states have implemented but now Prezidump Dump wants to implement nationwide.
 
ax1 said:
Stripping someone’s constitutional rights should be judged by ones peers, not a dictator. But it’s not just that...

In New York all it takes is a relative or “friend” to accuse one he is dangerous, simply say they talked about killing or even suicide and it’s bought to a judge by police and they are stripped. That’s not proper due process. It’s easily can be abused, not just by government but your acquaintances. Think pill popping ex girlfriend lol!
Click to expand...

I actually can't think of an ex that would have a problem with me having a gun but I've never gone out with a pill popper. Every restriction has some theoretical potential for abuse. Ideally a judge will reasonable but the key word there is ideally. If there was some rash of unjustified additions to the list when this was in effect, show me the data.
 
nostrum420 said:
I've been speaking within the context of the Obama rule that Trump rolled back. It had two very specific provisions that I don't think could be very easily misused.

I agree that not everyone who's ever taken an SSRI or something should be banned but that's not what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's in the context of social security checks, correct? That doesn't mean it'll translate. Property is seized all the time and if you have a lawyer to pursue illegal search and seizure claims, great, but there's a huge portion of the population that can't afford that. How about custody of a kid? Think any judges have been swayed because dad is taking a benzo?
 
ax1 said:
Just to clarify I’m not completely familiar with the Obama rule yet but I’m taking about not only what multiple states have implemented but now Prezidump Dump wants to implement nationwide.
Click to expand...

You would have to be Baker Acted. Speaking of. BA. Maybe Trump..,
 
justhere4comm said:
You would have to be Baker Acted. Speaking of. BA. Maybe Trump..,
Click to expand...

He is a genocidal maniac and selling US weapons to terrorists in Saudi Arabia while lecturing Americans on what is right or wrong.

Baker Act it is. Actually, Dump would be better off living in Gitmo.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Yeah, but that's in the context of social security checks, correct? That doesn't mean it'll translate. Property is seized all the time and if you have a lawyer to pursue illegal search and seizure claims, great, but there's a huge portion of the population that can't afford that. How about custody of a kid? Think any judges have been swayed because dad is taking a benzo?
Click to expand...

Trust me I agree that we shouldn't stigmatize mental illness but I don't think putting someone who themself applied for SS benefits because there illness precludes them holding a job or someone who can't be trusted with their own money on the no-guns list is going to lead to fathers with anxiety losing their kid...
 
nostrum420 said:
Trust me I agree that we shouldn't stigmatize mental illness but I don't think putting someone who themself applied for SS benefits because there illness precludes them holding a job or someone who can't be trusted with their own money on the no-guns list is going to lead to fathers with anxiety losing their kid...
Click to expand...

So all you need is "inappropriate suspiciousness" or if Im moody to qualify for SS and be criminalized to carry protection.

Seems like we are creating deterrents to allow people to get help. If I had anxiety and "inappropriate suspicions" the last thing I would want to do is go get help knowing the government will strip my of my Constitutional Rights.

I dont think we are solving anything, and if one is deemed to be dangerous to society to carry a strap, what would stop them from hijacking a school bus with a knife and driving it off a cliff or into a pond? If this is the route we take perhaps we should just lock all "aggressive" people up for life to keep our children safe.

Oh and even "passiveness" qualifies for SS....those are the primary people I would want owning guns RRROOOFFFLLL!!!!!

"Personality Disorders

To qualify for Social Security benefits with a personality disorder, you need evidence showing that your condition causes you to be unable to adapt to social or work situations and that the condition has caused long term problems. The disorder needs to cause at least one of these symptoms:

  • Autistic thinking
  • Seclusion
  • Inappropriate hostility
  • Inappropriate suspiciousness
  • Odd thought, speech, behavior, or perception patterns
  • Aggressiveness
  • Dependence
  • Passiveness
  • Constant mood disturbances
  • Impulsive, damaging behavior, especially regarding relationships"
Source:
Invalid Link Removed
 
Last edited:
in many states possession of heroin carries a higher penalty than illegal possession of firearm.
 
I've heard people in this thread say that drugs should be legal since enforcement doesn't work.

I wonder if those people who think enforcement of drug laws doesn't work think that enforcement of gun laws would work any better?
 
thebigt said:
I've heard people in this thread say that drugs should be legal since enforcement doesn't work.

I wonder if those people who think enforcement of drug laws doesn't work think that enforcement of gun laws would work any better?
Click to expand...

I have been the biggest voice here on pro-decriminalization of drugs (legal isnt a name I would like to slap on drugs,) of course you know where I stand on guns too.
 
in 2015 the Washington post estimated that there were 357 million guns in America, the country's population at that time was 317 million.

the 'war' on drugs was started by nixon and has been a total disaster. the only way the government could have more success with gun laws is through the suspension of rights.


to me it comes down to what rights we are willing to give up for more stricter gun control.
 
ax1 said:
So all you need is "inappropriate suspiciousness" or if Im moody to qualify for SS and be criminalized to carry protection.

Seems like we are creating deterrents to allow people to get help. If I had anxiety and "inappropriate suspicions" the last thing I would want to do is go get help knowing the government will strip my of my Constitutional Rights.

I dont think we are solving anything, and if one is deemed to be dangerous to society to carry a strap, what would stop them from hijacking a school bus with a knife and driving it off a cliff or into a pond? If this is the route we take perhaps we should just lock all "aggressive" people up for life to keep our children safe.

Oh and even "passiveness" qualifies for SS....those are the primary people I would want owning guns RRROOOFFFLLL!!!!!

"Personality Disorders

To qualify for Social Security benefits with a personality disorder, you need evidence showing that your condition causes you to be unable to adapt to social or work situations and that the condition has caused long term problems. The disorder needs to cause at least one of these symptoms:

  • Autistic thinking
  • Seclusion
  • Inappropriate hostility
  • Inappropriate suspiciousness
  • Odd thought, speech, behavior, or perception patterns
  • Aggressiveness
  • Dependence
  • Passiveness
  • Constant mood disturbances
  • Impulsive, damaging behavior, especially regarding relationships"
Source:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Cool. So, wild west meets thunderdome then?
 
thebigt said:
in 2015 the Washington post estimated that there were 357 million guns in America, the country's population at that time was 317 million.

the 'war' on drugs was started by nixon and has been a total disaster. the only way the government could have more success with gun laws is through the suspension of rights.


to me it comes down to what rights we are willing to give up for more stricter gun control.
Click to expand...

So nothing can be done?
 
nostrum420 said:
So nothing can be done?
Click to expand...
what do you suggest to get rid of illegal firearms in gang infested large city areas? many large city's already have strong gun laws since they are democratic controlled. the way it is set up now, getting guns out of these areas would be about as successful as ridding them of drugs.

the only way i see legit gun laws being enforced is through a suspension of rights.
 
thebigt said:
what do you suggest to get rid of illegal firearms in gang infested large city areas? many large city's already have strong gun laws since they are democratic controlled. the way it is set up now, getting guns out of these areas would be about as successful as ridding them of drugs.

the only way i see legit gun laws being enforced is through a suspension of rights.
Click to expand...

Government will get the guns back in through the black market to empower their drug cartels.

Oh oh .... unreasonable suspicions, where is my SS check?
 
ax1 said:
Government will get the guns back in through the black market to empower their drug cartels.
Click to expand...
guns are same as drugs...

supply and demand. as long as there is a demand there will be a supply.
 
thebigt said:
guns are same as drugs...

supply and demand. as long as there is a demand there will be a supply.
Click to expand...

Making guns illegal is only great for bu$ine$$, besides government, thugs, gangs and other criminals have alot to gain. Would be a terrorists paradise too.
 
thebigt said:
the only way i see legit gun laws being enforced is through a suspension of rights.
Click to expand...

And some thugs in power would never stop short of pulling it all off if they had a chance. So its plan B and incrementally get there over a long period of time.

Invalid Link Removed
 
thebigt said:
what do you suggest to get rid of illegal firearms in gang infested large city areas? many large city's already have strong gun laws since they are democratic controlled. the way it is set up now, getting guns out of these areas would be about as successful as ridding them of drugs.

the only way i see legit gun laws being enforced is through a suspension of rights.
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, you're advocating for doing nothing?
 
nostrum420 said:
So, just to be clear, you're advocating for doing nothing?
Click to expand...

I know you asked BigT but I say there is alot we can do. First and foremost make it easier for good people to carry guns with them. Have open carry like Vermont, make it a choice. Create a well educated gun culture starting with young public education, self defense tactics and responsibility. Allow teachers to have guns in schools. Heck, allow our Military Personal carry guns on their own military bases (remember the attack here in the states not long ago?)

A big concern of mine is that a greater majority of most mass shooting incidents killers who are on or came off prescription meds. I think prescription meds do help a large amount of people and Im not advocating a boycott, but I have concerns with over prescribing and the effects these medicines are having on already sick people to take that extra final step and go too far. I think there is some reform we can do with the way we prescribe meds and alternative remedies (counseling, psychology, etc...) and freeing up the economy from fascism would be a step forward too.

Id be for background checks if it does not involve a national or local database and a private independent entity that can be audited by other private entities. Perhaps we can utilize blockchain technology to expedite and maintain autonomy.

I have more idea but this is getting long, lol
 
Last edited:
thebigt said:
no, I am saying I don't see any solution working without suspension of rights....what are you advocating?
Click to expand...

I wonder how people in Hong Kong will feel about suspension of rights if they get trampled over with tanks just like they did in 1989 in Beijing?????
 
nostrum420 said:
You're so paranoid you can't hold down a job?
Click to expand...

If there is an financial incentive for me to get a free check then perhaps Im saying yes.

Actually, Im not that type of person but have met well more than a handful who both abuse SS and Welfare in my lifetime. I guess to some people handing over their gun privileges is worth it if it gets them on a payroll for sitting home and drinking beers.
 
ax1 said:
If there is an financial incentive for me to get a free check then perhaps Im saying yes.

Actually, Im not that type of person but have met well more than a handful who both abuse SS and Welfare in my lifetime. I guess to some people handing over their gun privileges is worth it if it gets them on a payroll for sitting home and drinking beers.
Click to expand...

By all statistical accounts those people are a very low percentage.
 
ax1 said:
I know you asked BigT but I say there is alot we can do. First and foremost make it easier for good people to carry guns with them. Have open carry like Vermont, make it a choice. Create a well educated gun culture starting with young public education, self defense tactics and responsibility. Allow teachers to have guns in schools. Heck, allow our Military Personal carry guns on their own military bases (remember the attack here in the states not long ago?)

A big concern of mine is that a greater majority of most mass shooting invoices killers who are on or came off prescription meds. I think prescription meds do help a large amount of people and Im not advocating a boycott, but I have concerns with over prescribing and the effects these medicines are having on already sick people to take that extra final step and go too far. I think there is some reform we can do with the way we prescribe meds and alternative remedies (counseling, psychology, etc...) and freeing up the economy from fascism would be a step forward too.

Id be for background checks if it does not involve a national or local database and a private independent entity that can be audited by other private entities. Perhaps we can utilize blockchain technology to expedite and maintain autonomy.

I have more idea but this is getting long, lol
Click to expand...

That's a bit wild west for me but it's something.
 
nostrum420 said:
For a start, reinstating the restrictions I've been discussing above.
Click to expand...
350 million is a lot of guns, what do you suggest for enforcement?

remember possession of non-prescribed opiates is a felony, yet it's an epidemic.
 
thebigt said:
no, I am saying I don't see any solution working without suspension of rights....what are you advocating?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's what any law does (takes away rights). Just because I think the speed limit should be increased, doesn't mean I think rape should be legal. It's a question of what people are willing to live with and gun sales are mostly driven by fear, unless you're 100% buying it for sport, which does occur. Fear isn't going anywhere, so neither are guns and neither are mass shootings.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Yeah, but that's what any law does (takes away rights). Just because I think the speed limit should be increased, doesn't mean I think rape should be legal. It's a question of what people are willing to live with and gun sales are mostly driven by fear, unless you're 100% buying it for sport, which does occur. Fear isn't going anywhere, so neither are guns and neither are mass shootings.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't think any law will take guns out of the hands of anyone who wants one-any more than drug laws have stopped drug use.
 
You know, what disturbs me the most, is how the people who inspire this social/cultural conflict are really just trying to deregulate our economies in favour of the firm's. They are not motivated by furthering individual freedom, they are paid lobbyists who recognise the advantages for firms that lie in these actions.
 
We have these American conservative lobby groups in Australia at the moment, and all they are doing is stirring up the muddy sediment that lies in the bottom of our cultural barrel.
 
BennyMagoo79 said:
We have these American conservative lobby groups in Australia at the moment, and all they are doing is stirring up the muddy sediment that lies in the bottom of our cultural barrel.
Click to expand...
sports, entertainment, social media are all dominated by liberals here.
 
thebigt said:
350 million is a lot of guns, what do you suggest for enforcement?

remember possession of non-prescribed opiates is a felony, yet it's an epidemic.
Click to expand...

The law would (ideally) prevent the purchase of a firearm. It's not about confiscating anyone's existing property. So enforcement would be these things being added to peoples' background check info. Obviously this is only a partial solution but it seems so basic; people opposing it is kind of baffling to me.
 
thebigt said:
sports, entertainment, social media are all dominated by liberals here.
Click to expand...
You'll be glad to know that Trump is drafting some more executive orders to address that. Although, that involves taking away first amendment rights and taking rights away is bad...
 
nostrum420 said:
The law would (ideally) prevent the purchase of a firearm. It's not about confiscating anyone's existing property. So enforcement would be these things being added to peoples' background check info. Obviously this is only a partial solution but it seems so basic; people opposing it is kind of baffling to me.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest reasons people push back on it is because of marketing from the NRA and others making money off of guns. The second they hear anything about guns and regulation, their minds automatically start thinking of people coming to take all of their guns. They're not hearing severe mental illness or common sense background checks because they don't care about those things. Those are just words they say out loud when these shootings happen to make it look like they care. You'll also hear things like you're more likely to die from getting struck by lightening while riding a cow because that somehow makes it better.
 
nostrum420 said:
The law would (ideally) prevent the purchase of a firearm. It's not about confiscating anyone's existing property. So enforcement would be these things being added to peoples' background check info. Obviously this is only a partial solution but it seems so basic; people opposing it is kind of baffling to me.
Click to expand...
a law is only as good as it's enforcement. if cops stopped giving speeding tickets speed limits would be irrelevant.

the drug laws have not prevented the use of drugs, what makes you think gun laws would be any different?

....convicted felons don't seem to have problems obtaining guns
 
Aleksandar37 said:
You'll be glad to know that Trump is drafting some more executive orders to address that. Although, that involves taking away first amendment rights and taking rights away is bad...
Click to expand...
maybe this will surprise you....I don't agree with everything trump says or does-this is one of those things. too many consequences involved not to go through congress.
 
thebigt said:
a law is only as good as it's enforcement. if cops stopped giving speeding tickets speed limits would be irrelevant.

the drug laws have not prevented the use of drugs, what makes you think gun laws would be any different?

....convicted felons don't seem to have problems obtaining guns
Click to expand...
You're using the premise that nobody has ever been stopped from purchasing a gun and that's simply not true. There are several other countries where gun control laws have been shown to work. This study done here in the US showed that states with stricter gun laws had decreased suicides and homicides Invalid Link Removed

Guns will always exist and these shootings will always happen, but we can at least try to slow them down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top