The words that may keep Trump a one-term president.

"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction)
03/01/2018 at 09:24 • Filed to: None

Politics inside, clearly.

During a televised roundtable with lawmakers to discuss what should be done to prevent future school shootings like the one in Florida, Vice President Pence began discussing the concept of gun violence restraining orders. He noted that states like California let local law enforcement officers go to court and obtain an order to collect someone’s firearms when red flags suggest they are a potential danger to themselves or others. “Allow due process, so that no one’s rights are trampled,” Pence said.

Trump interrupted. “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court ,” he said. “Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. … To go to court would have taken a long time.”

Removing any doubt that he might have misspoke, the president circled back later to complain that there are too many “checks and balances” that limit what can be done to prevent mentally unfit people from buying or keeping guns. “So we have to do something very decisive,” he said.

Whatever your view of Second Amendment jurisprudence, Trump’s flippant comments showed a startling indifference for foundational rights that are enumerated in the Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments. The legal concept of due process is as old as the Magna Carta.

It doesn’t seem like an exaggeration to say that some Republican members of Congress would have called for Barack Obama’s impeachment if he had ever called for taking people’s guns away without due process. It’s certainly a more extreme statement than Obama’s 2008 claim that people in rural areas weren’t voting for him because they “cling” to guns and religion. Even a decade later, Obama hasn’t lived that down. Republicans routinely cite it in their stump speeches.

But only one Republican member of Congress appears to have sent out a news release objecting to Trump’s comments. “We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in a statement.

DISCUSSION (60)

SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:32

I read of a man who talks incoherently to clouds...

crowmolly > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:33

See, idiots? This is why you should never be a single issue voter. In either direction.

Cash Rewards > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:34

Here’s where o disagree with you. Your top picture is supposed to unite, but in reality divides. R GOES NEXT TO 1 OR 6, YOU HEATHEN! NOT THE 5

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > SilentButNotReallyDeadly...killed by G/O Media
03/01/2018 at 09:35

I know one of those and he is much more stable than our president.

Ash78, voting early and often > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:41

And here we see the difference between a man who governed an electorate and a man who megalomaniacally ran a real estate empire at his whimsy.

All he had to do was say something like “ensure provision are in place so that due process doesn’t create bureaucratic delays”

Same point, better wording. Idiot.

Wheelerguy > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:43

lul look at T_D they’re literally melting

Future next gen S2000 owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:43

“We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the president talked to today doesn’t like them,”

Kinja'd!!!

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future next gen S2000 owner
03/01/2018 at 09:46

Sasse is great.

punkgoose17 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:46

I really hope he is only a 1 term president. What Race Bannon (Pence) said makes much more sense.

Speaking about constitutional violations I want someone to fix the holding of immigrants indefinitely.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:46

I doubt anyone will take this seriously, like we anything else, he contradicts himself on the daily. But at the end of the day he’s doing the opposite of “draining the swamp” and i think he’s very much following the party line, despite the grandiose statements to the contrary he makes. Because the people that keep him rich want those things.

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:47

I find it hilarious no one is really talking about this. To your point, if President Obama had said something even in the same ballpark, there would literally (not figuratively) rioting in the streets from uhh... those people. Trump says it and...

...crickets...

Rico > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:48

This might be the first time Trump and I have agreed on anything. The founding fathers would never have imagined school massacres and AR-15s weren’t even a twinkle in their eyes when they wrote the Constitution. If any citizen of the US thinks that having a gun/guns they will be able to wage war against the United States military and all its branches, they are delusional.

Wheelerguy > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 09:49

Also eff you Triple Dave and your shovel for burying my post .

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Wheelerguy
03/01/2018 at 09:58

Sorry. “Triple Dave”?

Wheelerguy > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:01

Refers to Triple H, which tends to get booked too strong and wins over fan favorites.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
03/01/2018 at 10:02

Granted, it is just one of the crazily newsworthy things that happened yesterday (Trump v. Sessions feud getting hotter, Hope Hicks “white lies” and resigning), but yeah. There’s definitely a certain percentage of the population for which Trump can do no wrong. It’s maddening.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
03/01/2018 at 10:11

The party line? He’s following no line but the one charting his own, constantly-changing whim. There’s video of him saying “take the guns first”. Whoever runs against him in the primaries will definitely make use of this in certain states, and there are plenty of people who voted for him that have become disillusioned.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > punkgoose17
03/01/2018 at 10:12

I hope he’s removed within the year...

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Wheelerguy
03/01/2018 at 10:13

Ah, I’m more of the Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, Macho Man Randy Savage generation. =)

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Ash78, voting early and often
03/01/2018 at 10:15

Don’t give him any ideas!

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Ash78, voting early and often
03/01/2018 at 10:23

Look at the reaction of the woman next to Pence in this video...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/due-process-donald-trump-second-amendment/index.html

haveacarortwoorthree2 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:26

What many people overlook is that the govt already can seize your property (cars, cash, houses, etc) without due process if they believe it constitutes the proceeds of or was used to commit a crime— that’s civil forfeiture. As guns simply are another item of property, it’s not really a leap to say that the govt can seize guns if a credible threat was been made/reported (granted, the timing is different). Due process in both instances comes next — the owner goes to court to try to get the property back. What drives me crazy is the Rs who favor civil forfeiture because it targets only “criminals” but will yell and scream about gun seizure AND the Ds who scream about the unfairness of civil forfeiture but will applaud the govt taking guns.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > haveacarortwoorthree2
03/01/2018 at 10:28

We’re talking about potential crimes here, just based on someone’s mental state. Minority Report shit...

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:38

It’s so over the border of sense that he could spend an entire 8 years trying to advance just that and would never get anywhere.

As a twisted aside, this stuff was rare when the country took rights away from those deemed mentally defective. They used to live in asylums and had no rights. It was deemed unconstitutional. Interestingly, it also helped with homelessness because most homeless people are mentally ill.

Mental illness above a certain precedent level (even if managed with medication or therapy) really should be a basis for stripping rights like gun ownership, voting, etc. Doing this would be a minefield, but it would solve many problems...

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:40

I think there’s a difference between saying you’ll chart your own line and actually doing it. I haven’t seen much of the actual doing it.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:42

You seriously want Pence to be your president? Trump pulled one hell of an Obama with that one.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:42

Oh, I understand — that’s why I said the timing is different. But in civil forfeiture cases, the govt just had to believe a crime has been committed to seize the assets — no actual proof is required for seizure. I don’t view the seizure of weapons from an allegedly mentally ill person when there has been some credible evidence of a threat as really being any different. Then in both instances the aggrieved party has the right to challenge the govt’s action in court. It’s hard for me to see how someone can be in favor of one but not the other. Personally, i’m against both. I think most states have involuntary commitment proceedings and/or enough leeway under existing criminal law to handle the gun issue, and I think the govt should never be able to seize your property and put the onus on you to prove you should be able to keep it.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
03/01/2018 at 10:48

I guess what I’m saying is, like he says himself, he’s beholden to no one (no party, no cause, no donor). He’s also beholden to no ideal or political position. His political leanings seem to change with the wind. His only compass is his gut, and that can changes almost daily.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:51

I wouldn’t agree with taking away voting rights, but definitely gun ownership if a person has a disorder that can completely cloud their mind and make them thing and act irrationally.

My bird IS the word > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:52

Hey, if we can get him out and vote a new R in I will be more than happy. Served his purpose as far as I’m concerned

My bird IS the word > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:55

You are right on this, there is a reason so many congresspeople don’t want to step on gun owners/the nra. It’s a significant portion of voters in each party.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > crowmolly
03/01/2018 at 10:55

I don’t think anyone was. Voting against Hillary was basically a responsibility in itself.

Think about it: She was so terrible that people voted for Trump to avoid her.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 10:57

It’s true that he’s said all that, but that’s about where the truth ends.

Because I think he’s beholden to everything that makes him more money and everyone that donates money to him. Also at the end of the day I think any meaningful decision he makes will also be beholden to that.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 11:00

I’d take The Rock over Trump. I’d take a rock over Trump...

crowmolly > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 11:03

Maybe not 100% single issue, you have me there. But there’s a lot of 2A supporters that voted Trump for national reciprocity and a perceived lack of gun-grabbiness. Not the economy, not healthcare, not anything. Just bullet availability.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > haveacarortwoorthree2
03/01/2018 at 11:05

If there’s a credible threat, I agree. But the threat itself is a crime.

I agree with your final point.

BigBlock440 > Rico
03/01/2018 at 11:09

The founding fathers would never have imagined school massacres and AR-15s weren’t even a twinkle in their eyes when they wrote the Constitution

School massacres? Maybe, maybe not. AR15? Absolutely they could have. The Girandoni air rifle was invented in 1779, a decade before the bill of rights was written. They even took one on the Lewis and Clark expedition.

functionoverfashion > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 11:13

I wish the title of your post would hold true, but your last paragraph says it all. He’s so empowered at this point just to say whatever he thinks, that it’s just noise. I mean, it really shouldn’t be treated that way, he should be held accountable to everything he says, but it seems to be impossible.

You would have thought something like the Access Hollywood tape, or any of his many credible accusers of inappropriate behavior toward women would have disqualified him full stop, like so many others whose careers have been ended or at least severely altered by such events. But no, he just denies things, turns around and says he didn’t say them, contradicts himself, or even worse, repeats the awful thing as though it weren’t a big deal, all to no end.

If any other person had said half the things he has said on record, they would be far removed from any position of influence by now. It is unfathomable that he continues to get away with this stuff. What is going to be the thing that he says that is finally too much? Or are we going to have to endure a minimum 3 more years of career-ending comments that don’t have any consequences.

Truth is stranger than fiction, you know?

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 11:16

Why? It works for felons. Do we really want people we can’t trust to own guns voting for people that might offer to allow them to have guns? Seems very dangerous.

Beyond this, if they’re unable to safely own guns, they’re likely not sane enough to make reasonable adult decisions about voting. These are Trump voters.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
03/01/2018 at 11:19

Oh, he’s absolutely beholden to his multi-billionaire status, his “brand”, his pride and his public perception, especially among the super-rich. But I honestly don’t feel like he cares much about what donors to his campaign think.

Rico > BigBlock440
03/01/2018 at 11:19

I’m referring more to magazine fed automatic rifles which weren’t around until the mid 1800's.

Either way the major point of the 2A is to fight against tyrannical government, one that controls the military and all its branches right? Well I’d LOVE to see a civilian militia in America take on some of my friends who are serving in the Marines and Army. It would be like dunking a basketball on a little kid lol.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 11:29

Come on... mental disorders affect people across society, and many are not irrational at all times. Taking away a right that could hurt or kill another person or themselves when they are not in their right mind (right to own a gun, right to drive a car, etc.) makes sense in some cases, but taking away their right to vote is a step too far.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > functionoverfashion
03/01/2018 at 11:32

It’s truly been an unbelievable year and a half...

I hope more in the GOP grow a backbone to stand against him, and soon.

BigBlock440 > Rico
03/01/2018 at 12:03

Well I’d LOVE to see a civilian militia in America take on some of my friends who are serving in the Marines and Army.

I don’t think you would. It would be bad news for everybody.

BigBlock440 > functionoverfashion
03/01/2018 at 12:05

That last administration proved that controversies and scandals don’t matter, this is the logical next step.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > Rico
03/01/2018 at 12:57

To further support your point – I don’t think just the mere existence of a vaguely similar/powerful type of weapon prior to the bill of rights being written is sufficient evidence to suggest that the founding fathers would’ve envisioned the type of industrial efficiencies and cost reductions that allow the type of fire power we see today combined with the ridiculously low price of entry and ownership sufficient to make it a common household item that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could purchase regardless of how fit, willing, or reliable they’d be in actually performing as a legitimate civilian militia.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 13:01

That may have been their logic – but it doesn’t make it accurate. People who voted for this nightmare that is Trump – most of which was readily verifiable prior to victory – to save us from the tyranny that would’ve been an HRC presidency…Jesus where the hell are these people getting their information? (Rhetorical question, we all know where).

BigBlock440 > ZHP Sparky, the 5th
03/01/2018 at 13:09

You think they couldn’t envision any advance in technology? And that amendments only apply to the technology at the time? That means the government can control and sensor the internet, print magazines, TV, Radio, and newspapers printed on modern machines? Or that cars aren’t subject to warrants because the founding fathers didn’t envision a mobile house when the 4th amendment was written? Cell phones and computers also wouldn’t fall under the 4th amendment because the founding fathers could never have envisioned people being able to store millions of pages in their pockets. Etc.

functionoverfashion > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 13:29

Did you see this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/opinion/im-glad-i-got-booed-at-cpac.html

This is a good example of a lifelong conservative who doesn’t like what’s happening, and doesn’t like the fact that Trump isn’t being held accountable.

functionoverfashion > BigBlock440
03/01/2018 at 13:32

I’m not sure what you mean, exactly. Politics aside, the behavior of our current president is not befitting of a leader, of any sort. He’s a proven, habitual liar, and a narcissistic jerk. What’s logical about that?

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > BigBlock440
03/01/2018 at 13:43

You’re barking up the wrong tree with me. I am totally fine with all these things being up for debate and consideration periodically given the context of the time we live in (but given how far we’ve let things deteriorate with lobbying interests and “political contributions”– yeah, we may be too far gone for that to end well at this point). I wasn’t born here and have lived in many other places around the world, so maybe that has something to do with why I just don’t understand or agree with this country’s obsession with trying to stick to broadly written words from over 200 years ago.

But I also refuse to compare unrelated things. While speech, personal property rights, and guns are all important things in their own right they are different topics and with severely different implications for society. They all deserve to be considered individually.

Waiting in anticipation to be told I’m not a real American so I couldn’t possibly understand how sacred the bill of rights, and the brilliance of the founding fathers is. You’re right, I can’t (none of this is to be misinterpreted that I believe that everything in the bill of rights is a bad idea and we should toss it all out).

ateamfan42 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 13:43

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I’m still crossing my fingers Robert Mueller’s investigation or something similar cuts his time to less than a full term.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ateamfan42
03/01/2018 at 14:14

Also my hope.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > functionoverfashion
03/01/2018 at 14:17

We definitely need more like her!

Mercedes Streeter > BigBlock440
03/01/2018 at 17:24

It’s probably going to happen whether we like it or not. Unless we find peaceful ways to pull this nation’s sides back in, it’s going to explode...violently.

Mercedes Streeter > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 17:36

As a twisted aside, this stuff was rare when the country took rights away from those deemed mentally defective.

Mass shootings were also rarer when there were fewer guns in circulation. Correlations without research do not imply causation.

They used to live in asylums and had no rights. It was deemed unconstitutional.

Because we abused people asylums not much differently than we treated prisoners...which is to say, awful.

I’m okay with taking some right from people with mental illnesses that could result in self-harm or harming others, but I very much don’t agree with taking away voting rights. I suffer from Depression and sometimes I have suicidal thoughts. I should never be able to own a gun...however, Depression shouldn’t bar me from voting.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Mercedes Streeter
03/01/2018 at 19:11

Mass shootings were also rarer when there were fewer guns in circulation. Correlations without research do not imply causation.

There may be more guns now, but they are in far fewer hands. In that era the vast majority of households had at least one gun. Today there is somewhere around one gun for every person in the country, but the majority are owned by a tiny subset of the population. I have plenty of friends with 10 or more and some with 30 or more. My parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and all but one cousin own none. I’m the odd one because my best friend from grade school’s dad was big into them, so I was introduced to target shooting and really enjoy it. I’m kind of an anomaly - I own a handful, but they’re enough of a pain to safely keep that I don’t even keep them at home anymore, I keep them in my FIL’s safe. I also prefer to just borrow and/or rent them, but due to some wonky laws recently enacted in my state it’s now a legal grey area and may be illegal under certain circumstances. I wish there were clubs like they have in many European countries where you join a range and they have secure storage there so you don’t even need to transport them for target shooting.

Because we abused people asylums not much differently than we treated prisoners...which is to say, awful.

That’s a failing of the abusers and systems put in place. We might treat those that can’t care for themselves more poorly now by completely neglecting them since they often end up randomly attacked, are forced to live on the streets, etc. I did see a new version of one on the news recently that makes the rooms “apartments” and has “medical staff on site”, which sound just like an asylum that is trying to frame it as not an asylum.

I’m sure it would need to be case-by-case, but a lot of mental illnesses leave people capable of functioning in society yet severely impaired in ways that, like you said, would make them a danger to themselves or others. I’m glad that you’re grounded enough to realize that you should never own a gun, but how do we know whether anything you might be taking could affect your judgement in other areas.

Any person that cannot be trusted with the enormous responsibility of owning/possessing a gun certainly should not be trusted with the enormous responsibility of voting or holding public office. Think about the implication of people that could be dangerous to themselves or others voting for someone that could be dangerous to themselves or others. See our most recent federal election for plenty of solid examples. Do we really want people that cannot be trusted with a gun entrusted with the ability to wipe out all life on Earth?

Mercedes Streeter > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/01/2018 at 20:55

“I’m glad that you’re grounded enough to realize that you should never own a gun, but how do we know whether anything you might be taking could affect your judgement in other areas.”

Thanks, for the backhanded compliment?

I also didn’t know there some assumption that I’m not grounded in reality or otherwise incompetent.

I take estrogen, testosterone blockers, and blood pressure pills (because those former two prescriptions render my blood pressure unstable). These prescriptions have known side effects and none of them would theoretically make me choose one candidate over another. Most people like me have to go through months of therapy just to get prescribed the stuff.

So, I’m not seeing the logic in using a blanket statement like this:

“Any person that cannot be trusted with the enormous responsibility of owning/possessing a gun certainly should not be trusted with the enormous responsibility of voting or holding public office.”

That sets a dangerous precedent, no? Such a system could be easily abused. The religious right would make it so someone like myself could never vote, even without depression.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com
03/05/2018 at 16:42

“Startling indifference?” Surely, you jest, or perhaps merely understate.

I’m beyond Trump fatigue; I’m at Trump exhaustion. And he’s only warming up, I’m afraid.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
03/05/2018 at 16:47

All we can hope is that he’s getting as tire of all of this as the rest of us.