Trump phones NRA to tell them he will oppose universal checks that 90% of US supports

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/458169-trump-called-nra-chief-to-tell-him-universal-background-checks-are?fbclid=IwAR1jw8x8eCvcviBP90-lNrmlvaCOxty_MZdqdfA3B3HtmEHXoR07GqmMIJc

After first suggesting he would support them, Trump called the NRA today to let them know that he no longer supports universal background checks for all gun sales, something 90% of the US supports and 74% of the NRA too.

With a small special interest group getting one of the best seats at the table in opposition to over 250m Americans, it falls on the members of the NRA to tell their leaders that they support universal background checks.

#Democracy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Constitutional rights aren't negotiable. Especially as universal background checks would not have stopped one mass shooter on record as almost every single one of them acquired their firearm legally. Here's a test of how much people really want universal background checks. How about we sign them into law along with repealing the NFA and outlawing any future ban by weapon type for the next 100 years? Acceptable?

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

Well, with proposals like that, is there any wonder why our government is ****** up? How about, no weapon bans for open borders? Sounds like a stupid trade off? What a coincidence.

Interesting that you say that most of them were purchased legally. One of the first bills that McConnell put on Trump's desk made it easier for people with mental disabilities to buy guns.

Feb. 28, 2017: H.J.Res. 40, "nullifies the Social Security Administration's rule implementing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007." The measure blocks an Obama Administration rule providing Social Security information for gun buyer background checks.

Social Security was no longer allowed to say that _____ _____ receives SS mental health benefit payments when people were making background checks.

When are people going to realize . . . the NRA and Republican politicians don't represent NRA members . . . they represent the gun manufacturers and that's it. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”- George Carlin

[Benton]

(08-20-2019, 10:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Constitutional rights aren't negotiable.  Especially as universal background checks would not have stopped one mass shooter on record as almost every single one of them acquired their firearm legally.  Here's a test of how much people really want universal background checks.  How about we sign them into law along with repealing the NFA and outlawing any future ban by weapon type for the next 100 years?  Acceptable?

Roughly 15-20 percent of the mass shootings going back to the 70s have been done with illegally obtained firearms. I'm not sure how that percentage reflects overall gun violence, but that's not really "almost every one."

Personally, I don't like the 'background checks are useless' argument because it's ammo (pun intended) for the 'weve got no choice but to ban all guns' effort. 

There's no one answer, but background checks, increased law enforcement alternatives and even a basic mental health safety net is better than 'well, there's nothing we can do.'

[Belsnickel]

Trump has no ideology, only ad hoc positions based upon what he thinks will get him the most attention.

[CJD]

(08-20-2019, 10:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Constitutional rights aren't negotiable.  Especially as universal background checks would not have stopped one mass shooter on record as almost every single one of them acquired their firearm legally.  Here's a test of how much people really want universal background checks.  How about we sign them into law along with repealing the NFA and outlawing any future ban by weapon type for the next 100 years?  Acceptable?

I think universal background checks are viewed by many Americans as the absolute bare minimum that should be done. There are other measures that are supported at lesser degrees, like banning the purchase of high capacity magazines or banning the purchase of certain kinds of Long Guns, especially Semi-Automatic Rifles (I know "Assault Rifle" is the most popular term, but I don't think it's a particularly accurate name for the weapons being used in these shootings). The most extreme measures are making owning a Semi-Automatic Long Gun of any kind illegal, resulting in prison time if you are caught with one in your possession.

I personally think banning any kind of gun or making them illegal is an extreme measure that would not end well in any regard if it was attempted. But banning  high capacity magazines and requiring background checks in any scenario of purchasing a firearm are good measures to at least decrease the number of mass shootings in this country.

I think the biggest step, that is beginning to take shape, is that threats on the internet need to be taken seriously. I saw a report just yesterday that a 15 year old threatened on some online platform that he intended to bring his Dad's gun to school and kill at least 7 people.
And was arrested for it.
[/url][url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/joke-types-comments-felonies-police-arrest-florida-teen/story?id=65070169]https://abcnews.go.com/US/joke-types-comments-felonies-police-arrest-florida-teen/story?id=65070169

Taking "jokes" seriously is going to be a very important change that should stem the tide of these shootings. It feels a little Big Brother-ish to arrest people based on things they've said online but in today's age...I dunno. If you don't want to take away the tools, you gotta do something about the users, I guess.

[Belsnickel]

(08-20-2019, 10:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Constitutional rights aren't negotiable. Especially as universal background checks would not have stopped one mass shooter on record as almost every single one of them acquired their firearm legally. Here's a test of how much people really want universal background checks. How about we sign them into law along with repealing the NFA and outlawing any future ban by weapon type for the next 100 years? Acceptable?

They absolutely are. None of our civil liberties are without limits. That is one of the constants of our government since its founding, that the balance between civil liberties and public welfare is a never ending struggle.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2019, 09:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They absolutely are. None of our civil liberties are without limits. That is one of the constants of our government since its founding, that the balance between civil liberties and public welfare is a never ending struggle.

No, they aren't.  They're open to interpretation, not negotiation.  Your view is a very dangerous one as it will be the first amendment they come for after the second.  As for your balance, the Framers were very clear that liberty trumps public safety.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-21-2019, 09:14 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: They absolutely are. None of our civil liberties are without limits. That is one of the constants of our government since its founding, that the balance between civil liberties and public welfare is a never ending struggle.

(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they aren't.  They're open to interpretation, not negotiation.  Your view is a very dangerous one as it will be the first amendment they come for after the second.  As for your balance, the Framers were very clear that liberty trumps public safety.

"Congress shall make no law ..." seems pretty non-negotiable to me. 

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they aren't.  They're open to interpretation, not negotiation.

 

The end result is still the same, and either can be applied, here.

(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your view is a very dangerous one as it will be the first amendment they come for after the second. 

Our First Amendment rights are already limited.

(08-21-2019, 11:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for your balance, the Framers were very clear that liberty trumps public safety.

Public welfare, which is more broad and all encompassing than safety. Sacrificing liberty for safety/security is a conservative position, liberty for equity is a liberal one. Both fall under welfare. Anyway, if liberty truly trumped public safety, you really wouldn't have a job as most of the laws on the books to promote a civil society and that it is your job to enforce would be non-existent as they would be deemed unconstitutional.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2019, 11:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  

The end result is still the same, and either can be applied, here.

I know we're on the verge of a semantic argument here but I don't believe they are the same.  Words can be interpreted different ways.  This is not the same as saying let's have a discussion on how much we want to limit "X" constitutional right.

Quote:Our First Amendment rights are already limited.

Yes, and, importantly to your next point, only when it causes direct harm to another person.  Direct being the operative word.

Quote:Public welfare, which is more broad and all encompassing than safety. Sacrificing liberty for safety/security is a conservative position, liberty for equity is a liberal one. Both fall under welfare. Anyway, if liberty truly trumped public safety, you really wouldn't have a job as most of the laws on the books to promote a civil society and that it is your job to enforce would be non-existent as they would be deemed unconstitutional.

On this I think you are way off.  Limiting the ability for others to cause you harm is not limiting their liberty, it is protecting yours.  Pretty much every single law in the penal code defines the elements of, and proscribes punishments for, actions that case direct harm to another person.  This distinction is important.  My owning a firearm causes absolutely no one any direct harm.  I will not use it to threaten, injure or kill another person except in a circumstance in which they are attempting to cause me direct harm.  The gun control position is that my ability to own a certain type of firearm also allows other people to own them who will cause direct harm to others.  Consequently, they argue my ability to own this type of firearm causes indirect harm.  This is unacceptable to me and it honestly should be to everyone else.

You want to proscribe certain people from owning a firearm, that's fine with me as long as they are subject to due process and have demonstrated they should not own a firearm, e.g. convicted felon or domestic abuser.  They have shown they are willing to cause direct harm to others.  Oddly enough, the gun control side of this issue is also the side wanting to give those exact people their right to vote back.  So, these people are not responsible enough to own a firearm but they are responsible enough to determine our laws and political leadership?  Quite honestly you can do a lot more damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.

[Belsnickel]

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know we're on the verge of a semantic argument here but I don't believe they are the same.  Words can be interpreted different ways.  This is not the same as saying let's have a discussion on how much we want to limit "X" constitutional right.

I was agreeing they aren't the same, only that the end result is the same with either case.

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, and, importantly to your next point, only when it causes direct harm to another person.  Direct being the operative word.

Ehh, not entirely. There are more limitations to our freedom of speech than you may realize. This is a bit of a dumbed down take on it, but it is accurate, and not all of these involve direct harm: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech/

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this I think you are way off.  Limiting the ability for others to cause you harm is not limiting their liberty, it is protecting yours.  Pretty much every single law in the penal code defines the elements of, and proscribes punishments for, actions that case direct harm to another person.  This distinction is important.  My owning a firearm causes absolutely no one any direct harm.  I will not use it to threaten, injure or kill another person except in a circumstance in which they are attempting to cause me direct harm.  The gun control position is that my ability to own a certain type of firearm also allows other people to own them who will cause direct harm to others.  Consequently, they argue my ability to own this type of firearm causes indirect harm.  This is unacceptable to me and it honestly should be to everyone else.

I would say that the majority of offenses that police deal with day in and day out are indirect harm scenarios. Speeding and other vehicular offenses, for instance, have the potential to cause harm, but most of them go without harm occurring. There are certainly laws on the books that do what you say, however, my understanding is that those don't make up the majority of police work.

(08-21-2019, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You want to proscribe certain people from owning a firearm, that's fine with me as long as they are subject to due process and have demonstrated they should not own a firearm, e.g. convicted felon or domestic abuser.  They have shown they are willing to cause direct harm to others.  Oddly enough, the gun control side of this issue is also the side wanting to give those exact people their right to vote back.  So, these people are not responsible enough to own a firearm but they are responsible enough to determine our laws and political leadership?  Quite honestly you can do a lot more damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.

So, you're in favor of universal background checks, then? Because that would seem to be what you are agreeing to, here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-21-2019, 12:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was agreeing they aren't the same, only that the end result is the same with either case.

Sure, but how you get to a position is important.

Quote:Ehh, not entirely. There are more limitations to our freedom of speech than you may realize. This is a bit of a dumbed down take on it, but it is accurate, and not all of these involve direct harm: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/03/6-exceptions-to-freedom-of-speech/

Free speech protection is preventing the government from punishing you for your speech.  Obscenity restrictions have virtually vanished.  Also, our slander and libel laws are far less restrictive than any other first world democracy.  I don't really think that article does much for your argument.

Quote:I would say that the majority of offenses that police deal with day in and day out are indirect harm scenarios. Speeding and other vehicular offenses, for instance, have the potential to cause harm, but most of them go without harm occurring. There are certainly laws on the books that do what you say, however, my understanding is that those don't make up the majority of police work.

You're now taking about infractions and municipal code violations.  In that regard I agree, most of them deal with quality of life and general public safety.  More importantly, none of them come with severe consequences if violated.  Far more police work is about dealing with penal code infractions.  In any event, none of them violate a Constitutional right.

Quote:So, you're in favor of universal background checks, then? Because that would seem to be what you are agreeing to, here.

I have no issue with background checks.  I don't think I should have to pay for them, but it's not an exorbitant amount.  As for universal checks, there's a lot more to it than it first appears.  Do I have to get a check done if I loan my friend a firearm to go hunting or to the range?  Do I have to get a check done if I gift a firearm to my spouse, child or nephew/niece?  Most importantly, to make universal background checks work the government would need a registry of every firearm in private possession.  Such a registry would undoubtedly be used to confiscate private, and legally purchased, property the next time the Dems hold Congress and the White House and there's a mass shooting.  Consequently, I cannot support it.

I would reiterate a point you didn't address.  Why do we want to restrict the right to own a firearm for felons but yet the Democratic party wants to restore those people's voting rights?  If you're not responsible enough to own a firearm than how are you responsible enough to help determine what laws are passed and what politicians are elected?  Seems like a contradictory argument to me.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Free speech protection is preventing the government from punishing you for your speech.  Obscenity restrictions have virtually vanished.  Also, our slander and libel laws are far less restrictive than any other first world democracy.  I don't really think that article does much for your argument.

It still shows there are more limitations to our free speech than just what does direct harm.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're now taking about infractions and municipal code violations.  In that regard I agree, most of them deal with quality of life and general public safety.  More importantly, none of them come with severe consequences if violated.  Far more police work is about dealing with penal code infractions.  In any event, none of them violate a Constitutional right.

I genuinely expected those other infractions to be more of the job than penal code violations. Just seems like volume alone would cause that.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have no issue with background checks.  I don't think I should have to pay for them, but it's not an exorbitant amount.  As for universal checks, there's a lot more to it than it first appears.  Do I have to get a check done if I loan my friend a firearm to go hunting or to the range?  Do I have to get a check done if I gift a firearm to my spouse, child or nephew/niece?  Most importantly, to make universal background checks work the government would need a registry of every firearm in private possession.  Such a registry would undoubtedly be used to confiscate private, and legally purchased, property the next time the Dems hold Congress and the White House and there's a mass shooting.  Consequently, I cannot support it.

Your concerns seem rooted in a slippery slope argument that isn't necessarily accurate. But we've had this discussion before about how California Democrats have ruined you.

(08-22-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would reiterate a point you didn't address.  Why do we want to restrict the right to own a firearm for felons but yet the Democratic party wants to restore those people's voting rights?  If you're not responsible enough to own a firearm than how are you responsible enough to help determine what laws are passed and what politicians are elected?  Seems like a contradictory argument to me.

I didn't address it because it really wasn't a thought experiment that interested me. What I will say, though, is that the reasons for those rights being removed are different. The removal of the right to bear arms is rooted in a public safety argument. I, personally, think that only those that have been found guilty of a violent felony should continue to have that right revoked. If someone was charged with a felony that was not violent or did not involve a firearm, then that right should be restored.

The right to vote being revoked is based upon the concept of civil death. This removes the individual from society as a form of punishment. It was also a tool used by states to keep black people from being able to vote, using crimes that black people were seen to commit more often as the criteria for disenfranchisement. I, personally, am not in favor of disenfranchisement in any form.

Because of these differences in reason for the two revocations of rights (promotion of the public welfare v. punishment of the individual), I don't see the positions contradictory at all.

[jj22]

There just isn't a such thing as common sense gun laws when it comes to Republicans.

It's harder to buy Sudafed. Go figure.

Just remember this the next time you hear about the mentally ill lone wolf who shoots up everyone. But just like they ignored Trump overturning mental illness checks to use mental illness as an excuse for the most recent shooters, they will make an excuse for any mass murderer.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-22-2019, 01:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: There just isn't a such thing as common sense gun laws when it comes to Republicans.

False.

[Aquapod770]

(08-22-2019, 01:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: There just isn't a such thing as common sense gun laws when it comes to Republicans.

It's harder to buy Sudafed. Go figure.

Just remember this the next time you hear about the mentally ill lone wolf who shoots up everyone. But just like they ignored Trump overturning mental illness checks to use mental illness as an excuse for the most recent shooters, they will make an excuse for any mass murderer.

LOL. 

No it's not. 

JJ strikes again.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2019, 12:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It still shows there are more limitations to our free speech than just what does direct harm.

Granted.

Quote:I genuinely expected those other infractions to be more of the job than penal code violations. Just seems like volume alone would cause that.

There are positions in law enforcement agencies that deal specifically with traffic related issues.  of course an officer not assigned to traffic isn't going to ignore a guy blowing by them at 100 mph, but the bulk of their day is not going to spent that way.

Quote:Your concerns seem rooted in a slippery slope argument that isn't necessarily accurate. But we've had this discussion before about how California Democrats have ruined you.

Sincerely, I don't think you can make that argument anymore.  You have Democratic frontrunners for POTUS talking about taking guns away from the citizenry.  This isn't a slippery slope argument anymore, it's being openly advocated.

“So to gun owners out there who say well, a Biden administration means they’re going to come for my guns,” CNN’s Anderson Cooper said in an interview with Biden.


“Bingo,” the Democrat interjected, “you’re right if you have an assault weapon.”

Quote:I didn't address it because it really wasn't a thought experiment that interested me. What I will say, though, is that the reasons for those rights being removed are different. The removal of the right to bear arms is rooted in a public safety argument. I, personally, think that only those that have been found guilty of a violent felony should continue to have that right revoked. If someone was charged with a felony that was not violent or did not involve a firearm, then that right should be restored.

The right to vote being revoked is based upon the concept of civil death. This removes the individual from society as a form of punishment. It was also a tool used by states to keep black people from being able to vote, using crimes that black people were seen to commit more often as the criteria for disenfranchisement. I, personally, am not in favor of disenfranchisement in any form.

Because of these differences in reason for the two revocations of rights (promotion of the public welfare v. punishment of the individual), I don't see the positions contradictory at all.

Interesting argument.  I suppose I'm approaching this from the Starship Troopers angle of the act of voting being the exercise of political force.  An admittedly simplistic way of explaining that, but, as I stated, and anyone who hates Trump will be forced to agree, you can do far greater, and longer lasting, damage at the ballot box than you can with a firearm.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-22-2019, 01:11 PM)jj22 Wrote: There just isn't a such thing as common sense gun laws when it comes to Republicans.

This is more of that broadbrush hyperbole we've discussed in the past.

Quote:It's harder to buy Sudafed. Go figure.

I've literally never had to pass a NICS check to buy anything with pseudoephedrine in it.

Quote:Just remember this the next time you hear about the mentally ill lone wolf who shoots up everyone. But just like they ignored Trump overturning mental illness checks to use mental illness as an excuse for the most recent shooters, they will make an excuse for any mass murderer.

This is a misleading statement, I'm hoping not deliberately so.  Please do some research on the actual subject and why it was overturned.  Also, it was not a "mental illness check".

[6andcounting]

(08-21-2019, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Trump has no ideology, only ad hoc positions based upon what he thinks will get him the most attention.

This is true, but doesn't that make populism his ideology?