Trump: 'We'll Be Talking About the Gun Laws'

[jimnyc]

Ummmm, no we won't be. The usual democrats will whine and try to get something passed. They will cry bloody murder when it doesn't happen and of course the NRA will be the next set of "nazis". Trump is simply not going to change anything. Nothing happens, nothing changes.

And like the other article I had posted, gun laws and regulations aren't going to change anything anyway, and any honest person should admit that, or at least look at reality. Look at Chicago, I can always repeat myself. :) Look at other places with some of the toughest laws. And anyway - there's a reason some folks are called criminals. They are called criminals because they don't obey the law. And they certainly won't be participating in happily giving up their guns.

It's a sad analogy. But think about someone cruising the Vegas strip in a tractor trailer fully loaded. Or even just a large unloaded Uhaul truck, their largest one. Blast threw the fence and aim for the crowd. There would have been some serious carnage. These asshole that want to kill - will figure out a way to kill. Between the criminals not following the law, and the facts out there showing that killers will kill, in a manner of their choosing, I shake my head at folks running on emotion and trying to harm the extreme overwhelming majority, to harm the even more extremely minority.

---

Trump: 'We'll Be Talking About the Gun Laws'

President Trump spoke to reporters before departing for Joint Base Andrews en route to Puerto Rico to assess hurricane recovery efforts. He suggested he might be open to changing the gun laws in the wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas.

“We have a tragedy," Trump said in response to a reporter's question. "We’re going to do — and what happened in Las Vegas is in many ways a miracle. The police department has done such an incredible job."

And then he added, "we’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by." He quickly transitioned back to praising the police in Las Vegas. "But I do have to say how quickly the police department was able to get in was really very much of a miracle. They’ve done an amazing job," he said.

What exactly does Trump mean by "talking about gun laws"? It's hard to say. He vowed on the campaign trail to "totally" protect the Second Amendment. He promised to "swiftly unsign" Obama's executive actions that expanded background checks and said he would abolish gun-free zones at schools and on military bases. He also suggested he would push for a nationwide "right to carry" law. And right before the election, Trump formed a 64-member Second Amendment advisory coalition that included National Rifle Association board members, pro-gun U.S. representatives, and firearms manufacturers.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/video/trump-well-talking-gun-laws/

[Kathianne]

We've been over his 2000 book where he was 'for' an assault weapons ban and longer times for background checks.

With the Nevada shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if he reverts to a call for fully automatic ban and any modification parts to make semi-auto, fully-auto.

[pete311]

Look at Chicago, I can always repeat myself. :) Look at other places with some of the toughest laws. And anyway - there's a reason some folks are called criminals. They are called criminals because they don't obey the law. And they certainly won't be participating in happily giving up their guns.

Just to be clear, there is interesting data about Chicago. Gun laws are strengthened in a state/city where bordering states/cities have similar laws. Chicago/Illinois are an island surrounded by weak laws. There are states on the east coast that have had success curbing gun violence because neighboring states also have tough laws. Also there must be reasonable limits, otherwise why are you not outraged that people can't have military grade weapons like RPGs or anti aircraft guns? There must be reasonable limits. I think that is what most are after.

[pete311]

btw, crazy thing this morning, I was doing my usual meals on wheels route which is in a very bad area. I was stopped at red light and a car blows through it. I honk my horn. The car stops, the guy rolls down the window and aims a gun at me. He fires and it hits my door panel. Paint splatters up. Luckily it was a paintball gun and he sped off. Damn near had a heart attack. Crazy fuckers out there.

[NightTrain]

Also there must be reasonable limits, otherwise why are you not outraged that people can't have military grade weapons like RPGs or anti aircraft guns? There must be reasonable limits. I think that is what most are after.

Nope.

The classic liberal tactic of incrementalism won't fly.

Let's take a look at the anti-smoking campaign steps :

1) Liberal : Hey, we're on an airplane in a small aluminum tube. Let's just ban smoking while flying, okay? That's reasonable, right?

Sheep : Umm... okay. I guess that's reasonable.

2) Liberal : You know, while I'm hanging out in an airport, I don't like that smoke either. Let's just go ahead and ban smoking in airports except in designated areas. That's not too much to ask.

Sheep : Yeah, I guess that's okay, too.

3) Liberal : You know, I don't like those smoking areas inside airports. It's offensive.

Sheep : I guess we can smoke outside.

4) Liberal : I have to walk past all those losers smoking outside in the rain & snow, we can't have that. Ban it.

Sheep : Wtf?

5) Liberal : Hey, smoking in stores or other places of business is bad. Ban it.

Sheep : Getting a bit naziesque, aren't you?

Liberal : Shut up, loser. It's for your own good.

6) Liberal : Smoking in bars is beneath us. Make them smoke outside.

Sheep : Well, since everywhere else is banned, I guess so.

7) Liberal : Smoking outside is bad. In fact, smoking in your cars is bad, too. Ban it. Ban it now!

Sheep : I guess I can smoke at home.

Liberal : Think again, numbnuts. You can't smoke in your home, either. We're doing what's best for you.




No, Petey, if we give you fuckers an inch, you'll take a mile. Everyone is woke to that fact, and your "reasonable" ploy is just the opener and you know it. The end game is the complete disarming of Americans and that's already been admitted by your fellow moonbats waging the campaign.


Shall Not Be Infringed. It's spelled out rather plainly for a very good reason.

Not one inch.

[pete311]

Nope.

No, Petey, if we give you fuckers an inch, you'll take a mile. Everyone is woke to that fact, and your "reasonable" ploy is just the opener and you know it. The end game is the complete disarming of Americans and that's already been admitted by your fellow moonbats waging the campaign.


Shall Not Be Infringed. It's spelled out rather plainly for a very good reason.

Not one inch.

Just to be clear you are in support of civilians arming themselves with RPGs, anti aircraft guns, gatling style guns and nuclearized/chemical firearms? Nothing off the table? Not arguing, just want your full stance.

[NightTrain]

Just to be clear you are in support of civilians arming themselves with RPGs, anti aircraft guns, gatling style guns and nuclearized/chemical firearms? Nothing off the table? Not arguing, just want your full stance.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

If you don't like the Constitution, you'd better change that part. Until then, live in the now and stop wasting everyone's time.

[pete311]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

If you don't like the Constitution, you'd better change that part. Until then, live in the now and stop wasting everyone's time.

NT calm down. I'm not arguing. I'm trying to understand you. Are you saying you are in favor of civilians having access to any kind of weapon, even nuclear and chemical weapons?

So, if the constitution were to be amended you'd be okay with it? Your last sentence seems to suggest that.

[jimnyc]

We've been over his 2000 book where he was 'for' an assault weapons ban and longer times for background checks.

With the Nevada shooting, I wouldn't be surprised if he reverts to a call for fully automatic ban and any modification parts to make semi-auto, fully-auto.

There won't be any changes unless something that is minimal, and it's congress that writes it and passes it.


btw, crazy thing this morning, I was doing my usual meals on wheels route which is in a very bad area. I was stopped at red light and a car blows through it. I honk my horn. The car stops, the guy rolls down the window and aims a gun at me. He fires and it hits my door panel. Paint splatters up. Luckily it was a paintball gun and he sped off. Damn near had a heart attack. Crazy fuckers out there.

Pictures? He's apparently a bad shot! With my old paintball gun, I think it was 300ftPs, woulda nailed ya dead on! Then again, I certainly wouldn't have been out in the streets with one, only in it's case when going back and forth to war! :salute:

[NightTrain]

NT calm down. I'm not arguing. I'm trying to understand you. Are you saying you are in favor of civilians having access to any kind of weapon, even nuclear and chemical weapons?

So, if the constitution were to be amended you'd be okay with it? Your last sentence seems to suggest that.

I thought it was quite clear what my argument is/was.

First, I will point out that you immediately run to the ridiculous with the statement of civilians being allowed nukes or other over-the-top weapons systems. Let's keep it real, shall we?

We're talking about firearms.

As Gunny pointed out earlier, maybe in another thread, the US Government is already in violation of the 2nd Amendment, as it restricts automatic weapons. Shall Not Be Infringed. The idea is that the civilian populace should be on an equal footing with regard to firepower as government forces in order to allow armed revolt against tyranny. This is the concept. Obviously the Framers didn't foresee RPGs, F-22s, ICBMs, Lasers, etc., but they did understand the value of an armed populace holding firearms on an equal footing with those that would govern them.

It has nothing to do with hunting. Or target practice. Or home defense. Or personal protection. Yes, these are all important, but it is not why the 2nd Amendment came about. The concern was government tyranny, of which the first step is disarming the sheep. It always is and has always been so. History is riddled with examples.

Your "reasonable" argument is nothing but a ploy to chip away at it until you have totally completed your objective of disarming every law abiding citizen, and as everyone knows, then only criminals will be armed and there will be no one to stand up to an oppressive regime.

Behold the anti-smoking campaign I briefly outlined above : Do you think there was a snowball's chance in hell that it would have gotten any traction whatsoever if the endgame had been realized against those smokers stupidly going along with the chipping away of their liberties? Of course not, so the incrementalist tactics were employed until it was far too late to do anything about it and here we are now.

This campaign against the 2nd Amendment is no different, except for the fact that there was no NRA keeping a sharp eye out for such infringements.

[jimnyc]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

If you don't like the Constitution, you'd better change that part. Until then, live in the now and stop wasting everyone's time.


That's why nothing of any consequence will be changed. There's a lot more here than just Trump, not to mention history, and not to mention rights.

As more and more folks try and stop conservative events, it wouldn't surprise me to see some of the nitwits trying to find a way to limit or get rid of the 1st. Actually, some have brought it up. Some folks think others should be fined for speaking certain things. Then the pronoun crap with the 'sexually confused'. But nothing changes there either.

[pete311]

Pictures? He's apparently a bad shot! With my old paintball gun, I think it was 300ftPs, woulda nailed ya dead on! Then again, I certainly wouldn't have been out in the streets with one, only in it's case when going back and forth to war! :salute:

I cleaned it off quick. He was maybe 3 car lengths away aiming out his window and I was turning.

[jimnyc]

I thought it was quite clear what my argument is/was.

First, I will point out that you immediately run to the ridiculous with the statement of civilians being allowed nukes or other over-the-top weapons systems. Let's keep it real, shall we?

We're talking about firearms.

As Gunny pointed out earlier, maybe in another thread, the US Government is already in violation of the 2nd Amendment, as it restricts automatic weapons. Shall Not Be Infringed. The idea is that the civilian populace should be on an equal footing with regard to firepower as government forces in order to allow armed revolt against tyranny. This is the concept. Obviously the Framers didn't foresee RPGs, F-22s, ICBMs, Lasers, etc., but they did understand the value of an armed populace holding firearms on an equal footing with those that would govern them.

It has nothing to do with hunting. Or target practice. Or home defense. Or personal protection. Yes, these are all important, but it is not why the 2nd Amendment came about. The concern was government tyranny, of which the first step is disarming the sheep. It always is and has always been so. History is riddled with examples.

Your "reasonable" argument is nothing but a ploy to chip away at it until you have totally completed your objective of disarming every law abiding citizen, and as everyone knows, then only criminals will be armed and there will be no one to stand up to an oppressive regime.

Behold the anti-smoking campaign I briefly outlined above : Do you think there was a snowball's chance in hell that it would have gotten any traction whatsoever if the endgame had been realized against those smokers stupidly going along with the chipping away of their liberties? Of course not, so the incrementalist tactics were employed until it was far too late to do anything about it and here we are now.

This campaign against the 2nd Amendment is no different, except for the fact that there was no NRA keeping a sharp eye out for such infringements.

Excellent, all well stated!

[jimnyc]

I cleaned it off quick. He was maybe 3 car lengths away aiming out his window and I was turning.

I would have followed him, got the plates and reported, and of course accidentally give him an ass kicking before the police got to him!

[pete311]

I would have followed him, got the plates and reported, and of course accidentally give him an ass kicking before the police got to him!

This was his side of town. Best thing for me was the get out of there.

[jimnyc]

I cleaned it off quick. He was maybe 3 car lengths away aiming out his window and I was turning.

So you let some schmuck shoot paint at you, don't whoop his ass, don't follow, don't get plate number - did you at least call the police or anything? That's fucked up, but he shouldn't have been able to get away with it.

[pete311]

So you let some schmuck shoot paint at you, don't whoop his ass, don't follow, don't get plate number - did you at least call the police or anything? That's fucked up, but he shouldn't have been able to get away with it.

I think you missed my post before, that this was in a very bad area. He was erratic, I'm not a fighter, drive a little civic. Who knows, maybe he has a real gun somewhere. Escalation was not in my best interests.

[jimnyc]

I think you missed my post before, that this was in a very bad area. He was erratic, I'm not a fighter, drive a little civic. Who knows, maybe he has a real gun somewhere. Escalation was not in my best interests.

I can understand that too, and hell, who knew if he had a real gun in addition. Still hate to see fuckers pull antics like this and get away with it tho.

[Gunny]

I can understand that too, and hell, who knew if he had a real gun in addition. Still hate to see fuckers pull antics like this and get away with it tho.The dude with the paintball gun would be on borrowed time around here. HE is the fool. Drawing something that resembles a gun will get your ass shot around here.

[jimnyc]

The dude with the paintball gun would be on borrowed time around here. HE is the fool. Drawing something that resembles a gun will get your ass shot around here.

Can always tell the difference with the south! That's one thing I like about visiting Jeff or my Dad - everyone has a gun! Crime isn't non-existent, but sure makes ya think twice about who you fuck with - or who you may choose to shoot a paintball gun at.

[pete311]

Can always tell the difference with the south! That's one thing I like about visiting Jeff or my Dad - everyone has a gun! Crime isn't non-existent, but sure makes ya think twice about who you fuck with - or who you may choose to shoot a paintball gun at.

hmmm I dunno, if it happened it the bad parts of Memphis or New Orleans, I doubt any of you would retaliate. You'd not make it out alive.

[Gunny]

hmmm I dunno, if it happened it the bad parts of Memphis or New Orleans, I doubt any of you would retaliate. You'd not make it out alive.What makes you think Memphis or New Orleans are any different than any other place? I made it out of Miami plenty of times and I'd say they got either of those two places beat for bad neighborhoods. And if you're poor, you get to live in or near them.

Criminals are not as quick to act if they think you could be armed. That's just an age-old fact.

[jimnyc]

hmmm I dunno, if it happened it the bad parts of Memphis or New Orleans, I doubt any of you would retaliate. You'd not make it out alive.

Hey, two places I've actually been to! Of course I didn't have a gun, but also didn't think it necessary on Bourbon St getting drunk. :thumb:

I really don't know what you mean by the above. But IF I were there and allowed to carry - and someone tried to rob me or something like that, why in the world wouldn't I "retaliate" aka protect myself? Of course I would, and have no second thoughts. I might get in my car and GTFO of dodge as fast as I can though! No, I wouldn't be walking, would have no reason to be in either places.

[Drummond]

This was his side of town. Best thing for me was the get out of there.

.. indeed. It must have been.

The disempowered individual has limited choice. Running is probably the only one, in fact.

Trouble is, though, that in situations where an aggressor feels emboldened by a lack of any incentive not to be ... incidents aren't deterred. They may well continue. Or get worse.

An EMPOWERED individual, however, one armed and prepared to defend himself when he must, has the power to deter. To stop further such things happening.

But, Pete, my son, that's just not the Leftie way ... to support such a useful outcome. To empower the individual to enhance his or her individual rights.

Is it ? H'mm .. ??

[darin]

He should talk gun laws - like...how to ensure an armed population. If we can trust our government with RPGs, we can trust civilians who pass the same background checks as the government users of the weapons.

[pete311]

He should talk gun laws - like...how to ensure an armed population. If we can trust our government with RPGs, we can trust civilians who pass the same background checks as the government users of the weapons.

An totally armed population is just as much of a pipe dream as total gun control. In any case once everyone has a gun then it's an arms race to who has the bigger and better gun. Think that ends well?

[darin]

An totally armed population is just as much of a pipe dream as total gun control. In any case once everyone has a gun then it's an arms race to who has the bigger and better gun. Think that ends well?

Naw - that's sensationalism. That scenario. That's not practical nor common sense nor real life.

There is no cure for evil. There is no cure for the wolves. We, sheep, we can do one of a couple things - we can wait for the police to show up after the fact or we can take solace knowing we have at LEAST a chance. Maybe its one in a million but...


https://media.tenor.com/images/0c65b1fb65153acfbdcc99eb650667cf/tenor.gif


Further - the more-armed our population the less chance of totalitarian take-over. That's a valid concern.

Plus, guns are a lot of fun.


http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2183782/84780505.gif

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Plus, guns are a lot of fun.


http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2183782/84780505.gif

Aaaaahh yes, I see you've found a GIF of "farm girl." Her old man loves to pimp her out on youtube.

Yes, Pete just can't stop himself from using hyperbole and exaggerations.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

If Trump does decide to "talk about gun control," and that culminates into some kind of caving to the left and 2nd Amendment infringement, I can guarantee you, he'll be a one term president.

[darin]

Aaaaahh yes, I see you've found a GIF of "farm girl." Her old man loves to pimp her out on youtube.



That woman has an incredible ass.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

That woman has an incredible ass.
And she's 50... or was, probably older now... works out all the time.

[CSM]

That woman has an incredible ass.

What do you know...there was a woman in that GIF. Here I was thinking "nice gun".

[darin]

And she's 50... or was, probably older now... works out all the time.

no way. She's incredible.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

no way. She's incredible.
Way... :cool:... she's 51 now...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgqnW5-tjbk