Remember When Obama Took The Guns?

[NATI BENGALS]

Me neither.

I do remember when Trump said "I like taking the guns early"

Ask me which president i would not trust when he starts trying to disarm American citizens.

Hint: He loves praising dictators and military parades.

[Au165]

I'll believe it when I see it. Trump has a history of saying crazy shit in these filmed meetings only to not do anything later about it. I do think the reaction of other people in the room was pretty funny.

[Griever]

im sure if we could go back far enough on this board, when obama talked about gun reform after sandy hook im sure the usual suspects were screeching autisticly here about obama was gonna come and steal all their guns". Yet they are silent when the sitting president says basically that

or was he joking again, despite "saying what he means"

[BmorePat87]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 12:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


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

You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2018, 12:45 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


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

Naturally all our strong, 2A members will quickly take him to task!

No way they'll just continue to complain about "liberals" taking their guns!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 03:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Naturally all our strong, 2A members will quickly take him to task!

No way they'll just continue to complain about "liberals" taking their guns!

When it actually happens, sure.  Aren't you always talking about how Trump says one thing and does another?  Or says outrageous things and then subsequently does nothing he said?  If you believe this to be true, and I agree with you that it is, then why would anyone complain about something he's almost certainly not going to actually do?

Quit trying to catch people in some hypocrisy spotlight, it's both pointless and slightly embarrassing for you.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2018, 03:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When it actually happens, sure.  Aren't you always talking about how Trump says one thing and does another?  Or says outrageous things and then subsequently does nothing he said?  If you believe this to be true, and I agree with you that it is, then why would anyone complain about something he's almost certainly not going to actually do?

Quit trying to catch people in some hypocrisy spotlight, it's both pointless and slightly embarrassing for you.

"slippery slope" I believe is the phrase bandied about about some who think even talking about any kind of new regulation.

So it's a bit hypocritical for the members of this board to ignore what the POTUS said in public while pretending that every mention of "gun control" will lead to the confiscation of your guns.

So making it about ME is slightly embarrassing for you when I am not the POTUS, nor have I tried to argue that the slippery slope is a given.

Carry on.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

Wait, so you have a PROBLEM with those accused of domestic violence losing their guns (temporarily assuming they are found not guilty)?

That's sad....but an interesting look into your thinking about guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 03:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: "slippery slope" I believe is the phrase bandied about about some who think even talking about any kind of new regulation.

So it's a bit hypocritical for the members of this board to ignore what the POTUS said in public while pretending that every mention of "gun control" will lead to the confiscation of your guns.

So making it about ME is slightly embarrassing for you when I am not the POTUS, nor have I tried to argue that the slippery slope is a given.

Carry on.

Is there a bill before Congress to do what he stated?  Is it being seriously considered?  The answer to both those questions should clue you into the lack of response to this statement.

(03-01-2018, 03:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so you have a PROBLEM with those accused of domestic violence losing their guns (temporarily assuming they are found not guilty)?

That's sad....but an interesting look into your thinking about guns.

This kind of disingenuous "internet points scoring" is why I hold you in such contempt.  Anyone reading what I wrote would hardly come to the conclusion you just vomited on to our screens.  It is endlessly amusing to me just how much you resemble what you purport to hate.

[BengalHawk62]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

Every time you mention CA law, reminds me to never, ever come visit you in that state.  Not that I had ever planned on going out there anyways, LA, SD, BH, etc, has never ever appealed to this small town Iowa kid.  The only place I'd picture myself at in your wonderful state is northern CA with the tall tall trees, but isn't that basically 'Oregon south'?

and I'm definitely never bringing any gun with me, not Fred's 9mm I stole last week, not my GrandDad's Nazi Luger he stole off a dead German officer in WW2, not even my bolt action 16 gauge shotgun I killed my first pheasant with, that I stole outta my Dad's gun cabinet.  

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

The order is just temporary pending a hearing.  This satisfies due process requirements in emergency situations.  That is the way Orders of Protection have always worked.

Just think if every criminal claimed he was entitled to a hearing before he could ever be arrested.  How well do you think that would work?  It has always been "Arrest first.  Due process second."

[GMDino]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

(03-01-2018, 03:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait, so you have a PROBLEM with those accused of domestic violence losing their guns (temporarily assuming they are found not guilty)?

That's sad....but an interesting look into your thinking about guns.

(03-01-2018, 03:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This kind of disingenuous "internet points scoring" is why I hold you in such contempt.  Anyone reading what I wrote would hardly come to the conclusion you just vomited on to our screens.  It is endlessly amusing to me just how much you resemble what you purport to hate.

So, personal attacks aside, you don't have a problem with it...you just want to say it's the same as a law being passed to take your guns.

Again.  Sad.

Edit: To say that I am not here to "win" or "score more points" than anyone. If someone else thinks these discussions (any of them) are being scored or you have to "win" them all they are not open to conversation and other idea.

[Vas Deferens]

(03-01-2018, 04:19 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Every time you mention CA law, reminds me to never, ever come visit you in that state.  Not that I had ever planned on going out there anyways, LA, SD, BH, etc, has never ever appealed to this small town Iowa kid.  The only place I'd picture myself at in your wonderful state is northern CA with the tall tall trees, but isn't that basically 'Oregon south'?

and I'm definitely never bringing any gun with me, not Fred's 9mm I stole last week, not my GrandDad's Nazi Luger he stole off a dead German officer in WW2, not even my bolt action 16 gauge shotgun I killed my first pheasant with, that I stole outta my Dad's gun cabinet.  

I have to go out to SF or LA a couple of times a month.  SF I can deal with, but I don't have to deal with downtown much.  LA is apocalyptic in some areas downtown with the shanty's on the streets and the unbelievable traffic.  

I have flashbacks to Michael Douglas' Falling Down regularly there.  If there is one place you need to own a gun for home protection, its there.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 04:19 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote:  not Fred's 9mm I stole last week, 

I have a .38

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 03:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're taking the piss out of Trump, I get that, but that is exactly what is happening in CA with domestic violence restraining orders.  A person targeted by a restraining order does not have the ability, or the right, to contest the reasoning behind the order prior to it being issued.  in CA a DV restraining order will result in your firearms being confiscated.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-in-california/

So, in CA, we already have take the guns first, due process second.

I withheld comment. I know what he is suggesting occurs in various forms, it was just a poor way of phrasing it to convince over his base. If we do involve a judge, it's not a bad policy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 04:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The order is just temporary pending a hearing.  This satisfies due process requirements in emergency situations.  That is the way Orders of Protection have always worked.

Sure.  Have temporary orders always involved the confiscation of a person's property?

Quote:Just think if every criminal claimed he was entitled to a hearing before he could ever be arrested.  How well do you think that would work?  It has always been "Arrest first.  Due process second."

There's a huge difference between a peace officer using their power of arrest using probable cause and a person being able to go into a court room, make a claim with no evidence and getting your property confiscated.  But you already knew that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2018, 04:19 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Every time you mention CA law, reminds me to never, ever come visit you in that state.  Not that I had ever planned on going out there anyways, LA, SD, BH, etc, has never ever appealed to this small town Iowa kid.  The only place I'd picture myself at in your wonderful state is northern CA with the tall tall trees, but isn't that basically 'Oregon south'?

and I'm definitely never bringing any gun with me, not Fred's 9mm I stole last week, not my GrandDad's Nazi Luger he stole off a dead German officer in WW2, not even my bolt action 16 gauge shotgun I killed my first pheasant with, that I stole outta my Dad's gun cabinet.  

Honestly, I used to love living here.  I've been in Southern California for the past 32 years, the past three or four I'm really growing to dislike it.  If not for my job, family and friends, and the weather I'd likely move tomorrow.  It's getting batshit crazy here.  Plus the traffic can be nightmarish.

(03-01-2018, 04:35 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I have to go out to SF or LA a couple of times a month.  SF I can deal with, but I don't have to deal with downtown much.  LA is apocalyptic in some areas downtown with the shanty's on the streets and the unbelievable traffic.  

I have flashbacks to Michael Douglas' Falling Down regularly there.  If there is one place you need to own a gun for home protection, its there.

The homeless problem has effing exploded the last two years.  

(03-01-2018, 06:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I withheld comment. I know what he is suggesting occurs in various forms, it was just a poor way of phrasing it to convince over his base. If we do involve a judge, it's not a bad policy.

Trump doesn't phrase anything well.  If there was a judge involved, the person had the right to defend themselves during the proceeding, and the effects were temporary, that would be the basis for a discussion.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2018, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  Have temporary orders always involved the confiscation of a person's property?

In a way, yes.  If your personal property is in the home of the alleged victim (even if it is your own home) then you are denied access to your property.

And even if you do not consider that a "confiscation" it is a limit on your personal liberty which some people would argue is worse.  The point is that due process works the same way.  The temporary order does not mean the person is not entitled to a full hearing. 

(03-01-2018, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a huge difference between a peace officer using their power of arrest using probable cause and a person being able to go into a court room, make a claim with no evidence and getting your property confiscated.  But you already knew that.

Actually there isn't.  A private party can swear out a warrant and many times an officer's probable cause is based on nothing more than a victiim/witness statement.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2018, 06:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In a way, yes.  If your personal property is in the home of the alleged victim (even if it is your own home) then you are denied access to your property.

And even if you do not consider that a "confiscation" it is a limit on your personal liberty which some people would argue is worse.  The point is that due process works the same way.  The temporary order does not mean the person is not entitled to a full hearing.

No one said it didn't entitle the person to a full hearing.  Quit arguing points that aren't being made.  What is being said, and it is true, is that this type of law allows for the confiscation of private property without the opportunity of the accused to defend themselves.  You don't think that having to lug all your firearms, and ammunition, to a dealer, who will charge you for the storage, or to your local police station is a significant burden?  That the stigma of having to do so isn't real?

Quote:Actually there isn't.  A private party can swear out a warrant and many times an officer's probable cause is based on nothing more than a victiim/witness statement.

In such cases the person is almost always entitled to be cited out and released OR.  It would be out of the norm for a person to be detained in jail based on nothing more than a person's word.  Even in those cases the accused will see a judge within 48 hours (business day hours).  Is such a short turn around time guaranteed under these restraining orders?  Absolutely not, as that is the amount of time allotted to the accused to surrender their private property.

However, as usual, we are arguing minutiae, the point was that what Trump stated already occurs.  This isn't really a fact in dispute.