Is Trump the only one who could solve the gun issue?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rogifan, Feb 17, 2018.

  1. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #1
    Over at the Daily Beast Matt Lewis argues maybe because Trump’s base is so supportive of him he’s the one who could solve this issue. I don’t think so. There’s one thing Trump supporters care about more than immigration and its guns and I think there will be blood in the streets before they would ever support any gun control legislation. Also everything that Matt lists as a way to solve the problem, someone else would come along and argue civil liberties, the first and second amendments and nothing will happen (which he concedes will probably be the case). In my opinion if Trump ever moves on guns he’s finished,

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/if-he...lve-the-gun-problem?source=twitter&via=mobile
     
  2. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #2
    Trump can't solve anything so long as he and his inner circle are held hostage to lobbyist money. And not just NRA lobby money. There's money from other factions…. the Russians, the billionaire tele-evangelists, etc

    How powerful and far is the reach of NRA tentacles? Oh here we go!

    Shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz was on school rifle team that got NRA grant

    Look, if the NRA has gazillions of dollars to throw at lowly high school rifle teams, they have more than enough money to line the pockets of Republican politicians forever.

     
  3. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #3
    There’s nothing wrong with the NRA donating to Junior ROTC programs. The NRA isn’t the problem. And there are many in Congress who believe what they believe because those are their deeply beliefs not because they’re getting money from the NRA.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    No.

    The only way to solve the gun issue is to repeal the Second Amendment. And Trump couldn't do that if he wanted to. Which he doesn't.

    At best, he could introduce some meaningless tinkering with gun laws. But I doubt he'll do even that. Rabid gun people are one of his core constituencies.

    This country will have to wait at least twenty or thirty years before generational and demographic factors are such that a Second Amendment repeal process would have a chance of passing. And in that time hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans will die needlessly.
     
  5. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #5
    How much legislation has Trump actually succeeded in passing? Do you really think he could overcome a terrorist organization like the NRA?
     
  6. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    More like 100 years. And the only way it will happen is through another civil war.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2018 ---
    Not any more than a Democrat could overcome a terrorist organization like Planned Parenthood or Emily’s List.
     
  7. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #7
    I think you need to talk to some women about the services Planned Parenthood offers. Why would you call them terrorist organizations?
     
  8. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #8
    We're done giving ground on the 2nd, we've wised up, all the ground we give will not be enough, you want the whole yard.

    I know dead kids makes a good selling point, but gun violence is hardly the top killer of children.

    If liberal's really cared about dead children these forums would be littered with pleas about other ways children die.

    You're not going to stop people from doing harm to others if they are hell bent on doing it.

    A better mental health system, and better informed citizens that are willing to say something and know who to contact in the case they feel someone maybe mentally unstable.

    Also, I don't think there is any proof of a causal effect between violent media( movies, songs, games, etc ) and mass shooting.

    We already have existing laws that allow for people that are mentally ill to not have access to firearms.

    Stop trying to get the whole yard, we will never give it to you, you'll have to take it by force.

    Instead, listen to what we are willing to give, work within the existing laws and frameworks in an honest attempt to stop these types of things before they happen. Meet us that far, and if these types of things continue to happen, after we have spent the time and money to make a better and more robust mental health system, and we have done our level best at educating the general public to know when they need to report someone, then we'll have to give some more ground on this issue.

    Not until then.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    I agree, but I think with all the other hijinks of his, he may already be finished.
     
  10. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #10
    That's naive at best. No sane person would align with a terrorist group like the NRA through their on free will. Politicians are bribed by this terrorist group precisely because the terrorists know that politicians will do anything to stay in power. If that means accept the blood money of terrorists then so be it.
     
  11. DearthnVader, Feb 17, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018

    DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #11
    Here is an idea for working within existing law to try and address some of the issues with gun violence.

    I said I wasn't going to give any ground, and I don't feel this does, but dead children are a good selling point.

    First a small lesson is needed:

    The Bill of Rights was not in the Constitution when it became law, it was added by the first Congress. There were two basic camps, one that wanted a Bill of Rights, and one that apposed it, because they felt if they made Rights into law, people would think that these Rights come from government, and that government can take them away.

    These Rights do not come from government, they are natural Rights, and they emanate from the people and the states. No amendment, no democratic vote can take them away.

    Now lets look at just the 2nd, what it says, and what is the intent.

    The basic concept is that " the people" have a right to keep and bear arms to participate in the defense of themselves, their property, and their nation.

    The idea of Militia is to repel invasion, and put down insurrections and rebellions. We do not have at this time a well regulated militia made up of the people, we have one made up of who the government deems fit. This is a violation of the intent of the law, the intent is " the people" meaning everyone.

    Some firearms are pretty much only good for warfare, they are built for maximum effect to kill the most people, in the shortest amount of time. The people have a right to own them, because they are necessary to put down invasions, insurrections, and rebellions, but that doesn't mean they can't be regulated. So long as that regulation does not interfere unduly on people's rights.

    So, here it is, we need a Militia that everyone, " the people" can serve in, a training and drilling program that anyone can serve some part in. It should not be mandatory or compulsory unless you want to own certain types of weapons, and keep them with you.

    Within these system of Militia people would have to pass mental fitness tests to allow them to keep firearms in there home, and they would have to keep these arms under lock and key in a regulated gun safe that meets a reasonable standard to be proscribed by law.

    The types of firearms I'm talking about are semi auto arms with a capacity of greater than 7 rounds, be they rifle or hand gun.

    Full auto and other small arms would need to be kept at the local armory, and only dispensed for regulated training, or in the event of insurrection, invasion or rebellion, and only if called by a presiding local government official.

    Hand guns and rifles of 7 or less rounds of ammunition, would not have to be locked away in a guns safe, and could be carried and used much as they are now, depending on the laws of your jurisdiction.

    The only way you could own a gun with a capacity over 7 rounds and keep it with you, is to be in the militia and pass a normal and regular mental health check, and to keep those weapons under lock and key when they are not in use, meaning when you are going to and from a range, hunting, or to and from training, or you are cleaning, maintaining or selling the weapon.

    The penalty for not locking these guns away, in the manner proscribed by law, should someone gain access to the weapon because it was not secured, and they do harm to themselves or others, must be severe.

    I think this covers a lot of ground, it brings us to a reasonable place for the times we live in, while it still reflects the intent of the 2nd.

    I think it gives everyone the ability to serve in the common defense, and most people the ability to self defense. I know I'm going to take some heat from the 15 in the pipe one in the chamber people, that feel they are going to need to hold off a small army with their side arm, as what I am purposing limits them to 7 round clips.

    All I can say is bring it, come at me bro, explain to everyone why you need to lay down that type of firepower before having to reload?
     
  12. cfurlin macrumors 6502

    cfurlin

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    #12
    A supermajority could repeal it, but given how divided we are that's not going to happen.

    We've repealed amendments before but never the first ten (Bill of Rights) AFAIK. That seems to be hallowed ground and it probably should be.

    The Second Amendment was put into place so people could arm themselves against a tyrannical government. I don't think anyone wants to lose the abiltiy to do that. All you have to do is take a short walk through history to see what happens to people who are powerless against their governments.
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    I don’t think it’s a long term success tactic to side with dead children.
     
  14. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    I think Trump has trouble putting on slip ons.. so no, I don't think he can solve the gun issue.
     
  15. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #15
    But no comment on what I preposed, only a dig at the dead children remark?
     
  16. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #16
    It think you're right in that the second amendment is here to stay, but if he would shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue he could possibly drum up some support for limited legislation to keep insane people from buying guns.
     
  17. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #17
    Already the law, has been since 1968, hasn't stopped the killing, because it's hard to enforce if the public can't or won't report people that maybe a danger to themselves or other.
     
  18. cfurlin macrumors 6502

    cfurlin

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    #18
    People also can't see objectively, especially if they're close to the person and that will always be a problem. How many times have you seen some clueless mother balling her eyes out in a courtroom blubbering, "But he'a a good boy!"

    Besides, these days who's going to notice a crime being committed...unless it's happening on their phone's screen.
     
  19. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #19
    Then it's a problem with society and you're not going to fix it by outlawing a thing.

    How's that war on drugs going?
     
  20. cfurlin macrumors 6502

    cfurlin

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    #20
    You'll get no disagreement from me.
     
  21. Rogifan thread starter macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #21
    Because they support murder and selling baby parts.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Very true. But the way you argue against stuff like that is with a pro-safety argument that the additional safety rules are counter productive and ineffective.

    On the other hand if you want to raise speed limits you aren’t going to suggest raise them outside schools.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2018 ---
    That looks to be false.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy
     
  23. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #23
    The NRA is not a terrorist group, they do not use violence to promote a political objective, nor have they ever.

    Gun violence hurts the NRA's political objectives.

    You saying a thing, doesn't make it so, it is flat out untrue, and I challenge you to site a source for this claim?
     
  24. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    No. Now we know he isn't. We have our answer. Deflection and tone deaf. Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 6.50.41 PM.png
     
  25. dogslobber macrumors 68040

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
    #25
    They are terrorists.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2018 ---
    Did you go talk to a woman?
     

Share This Page

207 February 17, 2018