For you gun loving Trump supporters

[osu_orangestreak]

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

“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,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.


“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded

 

[Ostatedchi]

Trump is just plain wrong on this. You don't get to circumvent due process in this country.

 

[davidallen]

He is stunning isn't he?

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

5d underwater chess.

 

[wyomingosualum]

He is stunning isn't he?

You love it when he talks dirty like that!

 

[JohnVoight]

He definitely shows his ass here. Thank god for our founding fathers and checks and balances. Both of which the Left would get rid of in a heartbeat if they could (and boy are they trying!).

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

 

[CowboyUp]

“Take the guns first, do due process second.”

 

[CowboyUp]

“Take the guns first, do due process second.”

 

[JohnVoight]

@CowboyUp I also want to say I’ve noticed you being a little more active on this board lately. I agree with your political positions about as much as I agree with your sports opinions. Which is to say not at all.

However, you bleed orange and that makes you alright in my book. Cheers!

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

I have no problem with taking guns from people who are publicly threatening others like the Florida shooter did.

 

[poke2001]

@davidallen wilk be defending the Second Amendment now and claiming how Trump is dead wrong.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

@davidallen wilk be defending the Second Amendment now and claiming how Trump is dead wrong.

Lol, so true. With some condescension and pretention thrown in for good measure.

 

[davidallen]

@davidallen wilk be defending the Second Amendment now and claiming how Trump is dead wrong.

No, just enjoying you guys twist yourself into knots figuring out how you can have it both ways.

Biggest test yet. I believe in you.

 

[davidallen]

Lol, so true. With some condescension and pretention thrown in for good measure.

Pretension. Get it right man...

 

[aix_xpert]

I am a gun-rights support and a Trump supporter. He is wrong in this statement. Fortunately, I'm not a sycophant and can make my own opinions and don't require that I align 100% to anyone else (including Trump). So I'll continue to support him as President while disagreeing with his position here. If the libs had figured out how to do that with Obama, I bet they'd have a lot more support and would be running all three branches of government right now.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

I am a gun-rights support and a Trump supporter. He is wrong in this statement. Fortunately, I'm not a sycophant and can make my own opinions and don't require that I align 100% to anyone else (including Trump). So I'll continue to support him as President while disagreeing with his position here. If the libs had figured out how to do that with Obama, I bet they'd have a lot more support and would be running all three branches of government right now.

We already do what Trump wants. In central Ohio (Columbus metro area), if someone comes to the ER and we have any concerns that they may potentially be dangerous to themselves or others we hold them in the hospital against their will until we can sort through the issue. That involves getting family/friends involved and if necessary the police to take the guns. I don't know what the standard of care in other metros/states, but this is how we operate here and undoubtedly it is a good standard of care and saves lives.

A little over a year ago we had a Chinese undergrad on the Medicine unit for a few days (I forget why he was hospitalized). He had a package overnighted to him in the hospital which he opened and ended up being a type of silencer that is illegal (I'm murky on the details). Nursing immediately became suspicious, alerted the team, and they called a Psychiatry consult. The Psych consult team became suspicious and had him moved to the Psych hospital against his will until they could forget out what was going on. Eventually with the aid of a friend the police got into his apartment and found a stash of weapons, ammo and bomb-making material. They found other concerning stuff too and called the FBI and they immediately they took over. This kid was shortly discharged thereafter (there was nothing Psychiatrically wrong with him) and damn right he didn't get his weapons back.

 

[davidallen]

We already do what Trump wants. In central Ohio (Columbus metro area), if someone comes to the ER and we have any concerns that they may potentially be dangerous to themselves or others we hold them in the hospital against their will until we can sort through the issue. That involves getting family/friends involved and if necessary the police to take the guns. I don't know what the standard of care in other metros/states, but this is how we operate here and undoubtedly it is a good standard of care and saves lives.

A little over a year ago we had a Chinese undergrad on the Medicine unit for a few days (I forget why he was hospitalized). He had a package overnighted to him in the hospital which he opened and ended up being a type of silencer that is illegal (I'm murky on the details). Nursing immediately became suspicious, alerted the team, and they called a Psychiatry consult. The Psych consult team became suspicious and had him moved to the Psych hospital against his will until they could forget out what was going on. Eventually with the aid of a friend the police got into his apartment and found a stash of weapons, ammo and bomb-making material. They found other concerning stuff too and called the FBI and they immediately they took over. This kid was shortly discharged thereafter (there was nothing Psychiatrically wrong with him) and damn right he didn't get his weapons back.

So you weaponized healthcare?

Damn that Obama....

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I am a gun-rights support and a Trump supporter. He is wrong in this statement. Fortunately, I'm not a sycophant and can make my own opinions and don't require that I align 100% to anyone else (including Trump). So I'll continue to support him as President while disagreeing with his position here. If the libs had figured out how to do that with Obama, I bet they'd have a lot more support and would be running all three branches of government right now.

This kind of ad hoc statement or position was always going to be a danger with Trump because he has no real foundational political philosophy that guides him.

 

[Ostatedchi]

We already do what Trump wants. In central Ohio (Columbus metro area), if someone comes to the ER and we have any concerns that they may potentially be dangerous to themselves or others we hold them in the hospital against their will until we can sort through the issue. That involves getting family/friends involved and if necessary the police to take the guns. I don't know what the standard of care in other metros/states, but this is how we operate here and undoubtedly it is a good standard of care and saves lives.

A little over a year ago we had a Chinese undergrad on the Medicine unit for a few days (I forget why he was hospitalized). He had a package overnighted to him in the hospital which he opened and ended up being a type of silencer that is illegal (I'm murky on the details). Nursing immediately became suspicious, alerted the team, and they called a Psychiatry consult. The Psych consult team became suspicious and had him moved to the Psych hospital against his will until they could forget out what was going on. Eventually with the aid of a friend the police got into his apartment and found a stash of weapons, ammo and bomb-making material. They found other concerning stuff too and called the FBI and they immediately they took over. This kid was shortly discharged thereafter (there was nothing Psychiatrically wrong with him) and damn right he didn't get his weapons back.

I think we all agree and understand about the imminent threat to yourself or others psych hold. If that's what Trump is saying then sure. But I don't think that is what he was talking about.

 

[Rdcldad]

I am a gun-rights support and a Trump supporter. He is wrong in this statement. Fortunately, I'm not a sycophant and can make my own opinions and don't require that I align 100% to anyone else (including Trump). So I'll continue to support him as President while disagreeing with his position here. If the libs had figured out how to do that with Obama, I bet they'd have a lot more support and would be running all three branches of government right now.

this ode to pragmatism seems to be the theme with trump supporters

and going to my 90% whataboutism

does not appear to be the case across the isle

 

[Rdcldad]

We already do what Trump wants. In central Ohio (Columbus metro area), if someone comes to the ER and we have any concerns that they may potentially be dangerous to themselves or others we hold them in the hospital against their will until we can sort through the issue. That involves getting family/friends involved and if necessary the police to take the guns. I don't know what the standard of care in other metros/states, but this is how we operate here and undoubtedly it is a good standard of care and saves lives.

A little over a year ago we had a Chinese undergrad on the Medicine unit for a few days (I forget why he was hospitalized). He had a package overnighted to him in the hospital which he opened and ended up being a type of silencer that is illegal (I'm murky on the details). Nursing immediately became suspicious, alerted the team, and they called a Psychiatry consult. The Psych consult team became suspicious and had him moved to the Psych hospital against his will until they could forget out what was going on. Eventually with the aid of a friend the police got into his apartment and found a stash of weapons, ammo and bomb-making material. They found other concerning stuff too and called the FBI and they immediately they took over. This kid was shortly discharged thereafter (there was nothing Psychiatrically wrong with him) and damn right he didn't get his weapons back.

just to clarify the fbi did do an investigation?

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

just to clarify the fbi did do an investigation?

I don't know what happened from here on out. What I heard was that the FBI was alarmed and immediately took over from the CPD and started investigating this guy.

 

[poke2001]

No, just enjoying you guys twist yourself into knots figuring out how you can have it both ways.

Biggest test yet. I believe in you.

I think what you will find is people will disagree with him on this issue.

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't know what happened from here on out. What I heard was that the FBI was alarmed and immediately took over from the CPD and started investigating this guy.

I suspect that there were also emergency orders of detention and other due process legal maneuvers to protect both the hospital and the patient from illegal seizure of his body...or his guns.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

I suspect that there were also emergency orders of detention and other due process legal maneuvers to protect both the hospital and the patient from illegal seizure of his body...or his guns.

He was "pink-slipped" to the Psych hospital (an Involuntary, up to 72-hour hold). We "pink-slip" anyone we are remotely suspicious of to give us time to sort through everything. Better safe than sorry. It is a good system and it works.

 

[wyomingosualum]

I think what you will find is people will disagree with him on this issue.

Such an easy decision.

 

[CowboyJD]

He was "pink-slipped" to the Psych hospital (an Involuntary, up to 72-hour hold). We "pink-slip" anyone we are remotely suspicious of to give us time to sort through everything. Better safe than sorry. It is a good system and it works.

And that is an EOD (Emergency Order of Detention). Exact procedures vary state to state.

 

[imprimis]

He was "pink-slipped" to the Psych hospital (an Involuntary, up to 72-hour hold). We "pink-slip" anyone we are remotely suspicious of to give us time to sort through everything. Better safe than sorry. It is a good system and it works.

Is there any correlation between the color pink being used in "pink-slipped" and that these people are mental subjects? I have seen lots of pink being used in the pussyhat brigade and Code Pink whose movements/organizations are definitely comprised of loony tunes.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Is there any correlation between the color pink being used in "pink-slipped" and that these people are mental subjects? I have seen lots of pink being used in the pussyhat brigade and Code Pink whose movements/organizations are definitely comprised of loony tunes.

Don't think so. The sheets are usually printed in pink so that they can be quickly found in charts since they are very important.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

Some analysis from a friend of mine who works in Forensics:

"So I have a VERY STRONG defense of Trump from yesterday on his statements about guns and Due Process.

I think Trump deserves credit when due. On this issue he has been surprisingly appropriate and in my opinion actually (if perhaps accidentally?) respectful of the public safety concerns as well as the civil rights we have for Due Process. He does not always speak in a way that supports this contention but what else is new?

Trump said “Due Process Second,” after the guns are removed. He misspoke. Due Process is present the whole way, even in the scenario he painted. The fact is, he is talking about temporary removal of firearms from people that are acting in a way that a reasonable person looking at the situation would be concerned. Someone making statements or actions that raise the alarms of those who know them or encounter their words, online or elsewhere. Threats are a known precursor to actual violence.

Is it not the case that a person who makes these statements or behaves in these ways is demonstrating Probable Cause (ie, you aren’t sure about it but you have reasonable basis to suspect it; like 35-40% certainty) that they are a risk to themselves or others? At the point where Probable Cause is present, a temporary restriction from access to firearms is reasonable and can actually enhance public safety while still respecting rights.

Secondary procedures adjudicated by the court would then be initiated. The person showing Probable Cause for dangerousness would have the right to challenge the allegations and accusers, and a significantly higher burden of proof would be required. Likely Clear and Convincing Evidence (think perhaps 75% certainty of the risk being real) or Preponderance of the Evidence (greater than 50% chance of same).

This is analogous to the potential for a person to be arrested, which temporarily deprives them of liberty (for a matter of hours to at most a couple days before being charged), based on Probable Cause as the standard. For a person to be found guilty and possibly sent to prison, secondary procedures with their Due Process rights demand that conviction be based on a standard of proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. But the initial arrest is based on Probable Cause and respects their Due Process rights. The police can’t just arrest you for nothing. Similar procedures are in place for psychiatric involuntary hospitalization, where people are commonly brought to an ER by the police based on reasonable suspicions of dangerousness which then initiate procedures that require a burden of proof at the Clear and Convincing standard for most jurisdictions. Some have a higher standard but the Supreme Court has mandated that it cannot be lower.

The Due Process rights of any person are respected throughout this. Temporarily restricting access to firearms is analogous to the initiating procedures laid out above.

Trump is totally correct in his intention, even if I am not at all confident about follow through and certainly don’t think he said it accurately or artfully."

 

[CowboyJD]

Some analysis from a friend of mine who works in Forensics:

"So I have a VERY STRONG defense of Trump from yesterday on his statements about guns and Due Process.

I think Trump deserves credit when due. On this issue he has been surprisingly appropriate and in my opinion actually (if perhaps accidentally?) respectful of the public safety concerns as well as the civil rights we have for Due Process. He does not always speak in a way that supports this contention but what else is new?

Trump said “Due Process Second,” after the guns are removed. He misspoke. Due Process is present the whole way, even in the scenario he painted. The fact is, he is talking about temporary removal of firearms from people that are acting in a way that a reasonable person looking at the situation would be concerned. Someone making statements or actions that raise the alarms of those who know them or encounter their words, online or elsewhere. Threats are a known precursor to actual violence.

Is it not the case that a person who makes these statements or behaves in these ways is demonstrating Probable Cause (ie, you aren’t sure about it but you have reasonable basis to suspect it; like 35-40% certainty) that they are a risk to themselves or others? At the point where Probable Cause is present, a temporary restriction from access to firearms is reasonable and can actually enhance public safety while still respecting rights.

Secondary procedures adjudicated by the court would then be initiated. The person showing Probable Cause for dangerousness would have the right to challenge the allegations and accusers, and a significantly higher burden of proof would be required. Likely Clear and Convincing Evidence (think perhaps 75% certainty of the risk being real) or Preponderance of the Evidence (greater than 50% chance of same).

This is analogous to the potential for a person to be arrested, which temporarily deprives them of liberty (for a matter of hours to at most a couple days before being charged), based on Probable Cause as the standard. For a person to be found guilty and possibly sent to prison, secondary procedures with their Due Process rights demand that conviction be based on a standard of proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. But the initial arrest is based on Probable Cause and respects their Due Process rights. The police can’t just arrest you for nothing. Similar procedures are in place for psychiatric involuntary hospitalization, where people are commonly brought to an ER by the police based on reasonable suspicions of dangerousness which then initiate procedures that require a burden of proof at the Clear and Convincing standard for most jurisdictions. Some have a higher standard but the Supreme Court has mandated that it cannot be lower.

The Due Process rights of any person are respected throughout this. Temporarily restricting access to firearms is analogous to the initiating procedures laid out above.

Trump is totally correct in his intention, even if I am not at all confident about follow through and certainly don’t think he said it accurately or artfully."

No, just enjoying you guys twist yourself into knots figuring out how you can have it both ways.

Biggest test yet. I believe in you.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

The friend I quoted would be categorized as far-left and was traumatized by Trump's election. He has talked about moving to Canada if Trump is reelected. He lives in Portland. Hell he might be David's neighbor.

 

[Rdcldad]

The friend I quoted would be categorized as far-left and was traumatized by Trump's election. He has talked about moving to Canada if Trump is reelected. He lives in Portland. Hell he might be David's neighbor.

that was a laugh

 

[CowboyJD]

The friend I quoted would be categorized as far-left and was traumatized by Trump's election. He has talked about moving to Canada if Trump is reelected. He lives in Portland. Hell he might be David's neighbor.

And you reposted your friend’s know twisting attempt to interpret Trump’s very simple statement in a way that exonerates him. So:

1. Consider me dubious that they really are far-left, and
2. Put me in the that was knot twisting to which DA referred whomever posted it camp.

 

[BIGOSUFAN]

And you reposted your friend’s know twisting attempt to interpret Trump’s very simple statement in a way that exonerates him. So:

1. Consider me dubious that they really are far-left, and
2. Put me in the that was knot twisting to which DA referred whomever posted it camp.

He will get a big laugh out of the fact that someone thinks he is a Trump supporter. He and his family went to Hillary's speech in Portland in mid-December and took pics with her.

A few of his recent facebook posts. You can decide for yourself if he is far-left or not:

"I guess the reason I don’t worry so much long term (don’t get me wrong, I am worried enough to want to take part in a fight against a president who would go full authoritarian in order to protect himself from investigation) about the integrity of the Mueller Investigation is that while Trump is good at a couple things (media cycle manipulation and keeping his base supporters confused and engaged in his personality cult), his adversaries are much smarter and more strategic than he is.
The Truth Will Out."

"I suggest linking and going to the thread about this. I’m tired of hearing guys like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, among MANY others, accusing the “Left” of being snowflakes and intolerant of ideas outside of their bubble or that they find “offensive.”
When is the last time you heard of a person who calls themselves a conservative listening to ideas outside of their info bubble? What is the crossover of primarily Fox viewers to watch an hour of MSNBC? I watch Fox on the Reg, to see what they are talking about.
The real “snowflakes” these days are conservatives and republicans as far as I’m concerned."


"And this is why sanctuary cities exist.
ICE is operating like a gestapo. No discernment for who actually represents a risk, just boosting numbers."


"This is a guy that Trump seems to like quite a bit. Trump also happens to have a major business deal in Manila and the Philippines ambassador to the US is Trump’s partner on the property.
There is no administration in the history of our country that even approaches the level of abject corruption and evil on even just this one facet of Trump’s administration. And this one doesn’t even purport to involve anything but money and business in exchange for looking the other way on ...human rights abuses, or even sometimes endorsing them. One could argue that other administrations certainly did some of the latter. I don’t recall any that engaged in the former.
And again, this is just the Philippines. Any prior administration, this combination alone would be sufficient to launch a probe that likely would establish the boundaries of the Emolluments Clause on the way to a possible impeachment."

 

[CowboyJD]

He will get a big laugh out of the fact that someone thinks he is a Trump supporter. He and his family went to Hillary's speech in Portland in mid-December and took pics with her.

A few of his recent facebook posts. You can decide for yourself if he is far-left or not:

"I guess the reason I don’t worry so much long term (don’t get me wrong, I am worried enough to want to take part in a fight against a president who would go full authoritarian in order to protect himself from investigation) about the integrity of the Mueller Investigation is that while Trump is good at a couple things (media cycle manipulation and keeping his base supporters confused and engaged in his personality cult), his adversaries are much smarter and more strategic than he is.
The Truth Will Out."

"I suggest linking and going to the thread about this. I’m tired of hearing guys like Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, among MANY others, accusing the “Left” of being snowflakes and intolerant of ideas outside of their bubble or that they find “offensive.”
When is the last time you heard of a person who calls themselves a conservative listening to ideas outside of their info bubble? What is the crossover of primarily Fox viewers to watch an hour of MSNBC? I watch Fox on the Reg, to see what they are talking about.
The real “snowflakes” these days are conservatives and republicans as far as I’m concerned."


"And this is why sanctuary cities exist.
ICE is operating like a gestapo. No discernment for who actually represents a risk, just boosting numbers."


"This is a guy that Trump seems to like quite a bit. Trump also happens to have a major business deal in Manila and the Philippines ambassador to the US is Trump’s partner on the property.
There is no administration in the history of our country that even approaches the level of abject corruption and evil on even just this one facet of Trump’s administration. And this one doesn’t even purport to involve anything but money and business in exchange for looking the other way on ...human rights abuses, or even sometimes endorsing them. One could argue that other administrations certainly did some of the latter. I don’t recall any that engaged in the former.
And again, this is just the Philippines. Any prior administration, this combination alone would be sufficient to launch a probe that likely would establish the boundaries of the Emolluments Clause on the way to a possible impeachment."

Why are you trying to convince me he is far left?

I don’t care.

That first post is nothing but a knot twisting, Trump excusing exercise to try to interpret what he said in a manner that excuses what the clear meaning of the words indicate.

Take the guns now.

Due process later.

Which I disagree with.

Vehemently.

 

[Rdcldad]

Why are you trying to convince me he is far left?

I don’t care.

That first post is nothing but a knot twisting, Trump excusing exercise to try to interpret what he said in a manner that excuses what the clear meaning of the words indicate.

Take the guns now.

Due process later.

Which I disagree with.

Vehemently.

take the cash now
do process later
done all the time

not blue

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Imagine these same people if Obama said to take the guns now and worry about due process later. No explanation could mollify them.

Trump's cult of personality and his ability to make his supporters turn 180 degree reversals on previously yugely important issues is unlike anything I've ever seen. It's amazing. I never thought this country would go down that road.

And it's not about his convictions -- he just read some polling and recognizes a sea change and is reacting to it. I don't think he really gives one single care about gun laws except for political optics.