Using the cake story from above, he is giving them a stale donut he didn’t want anyway, calling it a piece of cake, and keeping the cake.
The Dem’s won’t get anything and will go back to their constituents and say, see we got something. Keep voting for us.
The smarter ones will realize they got nothing and be pissed at them. Similar to his approach in the immigration debate.
This guy is smarter than you think.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:

quote:

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.

If you read what this actually says, it does not call for banning bumpstocks. It calls for expeditiously ruling about devices that turn a legal gun into an illegal one. Let's see what the final rule looks like before jumping to any conclusions.

This....I trust my President to do the right thing. So far he has not disappointed me. No matter what the New's or hand wringers had to say about his choices.

I think ANY new law related to guns needs to have added as an amendment or rider that local, state, and federal officials WILL be CRIMINALLY responsible and charged for their failure to respond and do their jobs.


Time for these folks to “have some skin in the game”. Like the Air Force folks who failed to submit the Texas church shooters into the NICS system and the FBI folks who couldn’t find or identify the Florida Schol shooter (even though he used his real name when making threats and had filled out the 4473 on the NICS approved purchase)

This “Gee, we’re really sorry but...” bullshit is inexcusable. If you or I screw up we get crushed by the resources of the government and life is ruined. When the “officials” do it it is “my bad”.

No more, time for accountability and consequences.

The president reiterated his position this morning:

Trump: "I Never Said Give Teachers Guns"

Left-wing media exploded with fury Wednesday afternoon following reports that, during a meeting with survivors of last week's school shooting in Parkland, Fla., President Trump had suggested that the most effective method of preventing school shootings would be arming teachers.

"If you had a teacher who was adept at firearms, they could very well end the attack very quickly, and the good thing about a suggestion like that -- and we're going to be looking at it very strongly, and I think a lot of people are going to be opposed to it. I think a lot of people are going to like it. But the good thing is you're going to have a lot of [armed] people with that," Trump said during the meeting, which was broadcast live.

But apparently displeased with the tenor of the coverage that his remarks elicited, Trump tweeted this morning that he never said he'd like to "give teachers guns"...what he said was to "looked at the possibility" of giving concealed weapons to teachers with a military background or who are "gun adept" - a group that would include, at max, 20% of teachers...

...Before adding that "gun-adept" teachers would, in fact, be an effective deterrent to "sicko" school shooters who would "NEVER attack that school" knowing that they might face return fire from a host of educators...

...Before affirming that he will be "strongly pushing" comprehensive background checks with an emphasis on mental health. He'd also like to raise the age requirement for all gun sales to 21 while ending the sale of bump stocks. Trump added that he's optimistic about the chances of passing his plan because "Congress is finally in a mood to do something on the issue.."



So, to be clear, Trump isn't saying "give teachers guns" - he's saying let teachers bring their own guns to school.

...See the distinction?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...d-give-teachers-guns

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
If we do have to give something up, I think it will be like DACA, if you really want these bump stock thingies, fine I want xyz.

This is also how I think it should be approached. You want this? We want that. That's compromising, don't give up anything without something in return.

For example, you want bump stocks banned, we want teachers and administrators allowed to CCW in schools. You want to up the age limit for buying AR's? We want the removal of all gun and magazine bans at the state level.

That. That right there.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
The president reiterated his position this morning:

sigh

What's your problem? Do you think that we could get through this with nothing being done? Who gives a shit about bump stocks and 21 year old age limit? And don't tell me how we shouldn't give an inch. There was no way we were going to get through this without something being done, even if it's meaningless.

I am a little bit concerned about the mental health part. If it is for better reporting of involuntary mental hospital admission, I am all for that. Pre-purchase mental screening would be a HUGE no-no.

I don't think this country would be OK with government appointed shrinks taking away rights of a whole slew of people because the government had deemed them as unfit, sort of like Minority Report style.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's your problem? Do you think that we could get through this with nothing being done? Who gives a shit about bump stocks and 21 year old age limit? And don't tell me how we shouldn't give an inch. There was no way we were going to get through this without something being done, even if it's meaningless.

Agree 100%

If full auto is highly regulated, then by extension a bump stock should also be regulated.

Another area are those “arm braces” that (wink, wink) will not be “shouldered”. If an SBR is an NFA item, then those should be too.

Note: I’m for abolishing the entire NFA, BUT I prefer the law to apply equally.

If I remember correctly, there is a provision in getting your CCW license that allows local law enforcement officials to deny the issuance of a license if you are a known trouble maker. Even if you have never been officially charged with a crime, if you are known locally as a problem individual, local law enforcement can request that you be denied for a CCW. Although that could just be an Arkansas thing.

Just floating a question here. . .but why couldn't something like this be implemented for all gun purchases? Let's call it a "yellow flag" on someone's background check--which has to be renewed by local law enforcement on an annual basis--which identifies an individual as a known menace to society. And which doesn't automatically guarantee denial, but which requires local law enforcement to conduct personal interviews prior to approval of a gun purchase.

In the case of the Florida shooting, seems like if local law enforcement officials could have said "Yeah, we've been out to his house 35 times, he's a troublemaker and doesn't need to buy an AR15" then maybe that would have worked.

I don't know, just trying to think outside the box.

quote:

Originally posted by Rigby470:
That could just be an Arkansas thing.

Yeah, that's likely just an Arkansas thing.

quote:

Just floating a question here. . .but why couldn't something like this be implemented for all gun purchases? Let's call it a "yellow flag" on someone's background check--which has to be renewed by local law enforcement on an annual basis--which identifies an individual as a known menace to society. And which doesn't automatically guarantee denial, but which requires local law enforcement to conduct personal interviews prior to approval of a gun purchase.

Because summarily denying rights to individuals without due process is typically a bad idea. Shall issue is shall issue. None of what you posted above squares with that IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's your problem?

My problem is the President's position on this matter. I don't like it, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. I don't support the new laws that he's apparently pushing for.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:

Agree 100%

If full auto is highly regulated, then by extension a bump stock should also be regulated.

Another area are those “arm braces” that (wink, wink) will not be “shouldered”. If an SBR is an NFA item, then those should be too.

Note: I’m for abolishing the entire NFA, BUT I prefer the law to apply equally.

Well, we all know the NFA isn't going away. That said, IIRC, there are some states where those very things you want regulated are as close as their residents can get to those items. Besides, one can duplicate bump-firing without a Slide-Fire. Essentially, the only way to eliminate bum-firing is to eliminate capable firearms.

I'm not inclined to bargain away these gizmos in the hopes it will secure the future of firearms ownership. I can't agree to raising the age to 21 when somebody 18 years old is entrusted with a rifle in the military. And I'm not in the camp of "since someone shit their pants, we all have to wear a diaper".

As I said recently, the problem of mass shootings is unfixable. Even if people actually recognized and acknowledged the true issue- which is our sick society and that multiculturalism will not work in this country- they will not be able to fix the issue.

Nevertheless, people feel the need to "do something". It's OK when 60 adults are murdered in Vegas, but we act as if children- with their unproven lives- are the most valuable members of our society. People get really fucking stupidly emotional when children are involved. I guess when you hit 18, you stop being special, but under 18, you are so, so very precious and special. So, people act this way when kids are involved, just as they did in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.

Therefore, there is no avoiding some gesture of gun control efforts.

Open your eyes, guys. Your principles of steadfastly refusing to give an inch on your gun rights simply will not work in this instance. President Trump knows this. The things he's talking about won't affect any of you, and don't tell me I'm missing the point.

"Mental health" makes me nervous. A vet returning from Afghanistan, for instance, with a diagnosis of PTSD. Therefore, not allowed to purchase a firearm? Someone going through a rough patch who is treated for depression. Not allowed to purchase a firearm? Giving shrinks power over the Second Amendment is very risky.

If someone has been diagnosed as psychotic, I think that will already show up in a NICS check and stop a sale-- correct? If not, I would be okay with that provision.

Beyond that, it's a slippery slope.

The major repository of info about mental health resides with an individual's family physician or a mental health professional. So, unless the buyer of a firearm has committed a crime that shows up in some legal database, the only way to effectively determine a person's mental health status is either to review private medical records OR require some type of mental health eval by a standard questionnaire or thru a cursory visit with a mental health professional. I object to my private medical records being scrutinized by any Tom, Dick or Harry who may glean info other than what is necessary to determine my mental health status. I think that some arbitrary mental health screening otherwise opens the door to abuse - ala the Lois Lerner/IRS pogrom. So we default to available public/police records - which would have prevented the Cruz kid from buying a gun - but would not likely accomplish any effective reduction in gun buying by others who truly have a mental disorder that renders them dangerous. Blanket exclusions (ex- military or former LEOs) also fraught with abuse potential. I am OK with raising the age to 21, excluding those with known mental health issues as revealed in police records, banning bump stocks, but beyond that it is truly a very truly slippery slope that does not benefit us.....

What does multiculturalism have to do with school shootings? I completely agree that our society is sick and we have the Leftists mostly to blame. Just not sure where multiculturalism comes into play specifically here.

Oh, and while I'm at it:

When I have a question about Instagram or the lyrics of Beyonce's latest song, I'll consult a 16 year old. Until then, do us all a favor and stop acting as you have the first clue as to the solutions to mass shootings. You know NOTHING. You live at home, don't work for a living, don't pay rent or a mortgage and your life experience would fit into a sewing thimble.
You contribute NOTHING to the dialogue about these shootings because you're a know-nothing adolescent, so just stow the shit.

IGNORANT. I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T

You are ignorant and you have nothing useful to say. Just shut the Hell up.

When you hear glass breaking at 3 in the morning, do you call the police or reach for your pistol? No, you don't call the police. You let mommy and daddy know that you heard something, and they will call the police. Figure it out, junior.

Well said, prariefire. That's my concern here also.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
As I said recently, the problem of mass shootings is unfixable.

Nevertheless, people feel the need to "do something".

Therefore, there is no avoiding some gesture of gun control efforts.

Open your eyes, guys. Your principles of steadfastly refusing to give an inch on your gun rights simply will not work in this instance. President Trump knows this. The things he's talking about won't affect any of you, and don't tell me I'm missing the point.

All true, you have to pick the battle wisely.
There is a HUGE difference in banning a BS bump stock and banning all semi-auto "scary" rifles or even worse > standard aka high capacity magazines.
Having enough ammo in a "situation" or not enough because of stupid laws can get you killed.
Nevertheless, we have to be careful in concessions as they are always one way > in the wrong direction.
If they could actually pass an legalize all suppressors or carrying between states then that might relieve the one-way pressure.
However, still agree that we need to be patient with gesture and not overreact.