Trump Calls for Linking New Gun Control Legislation to Immigration Reform

The president offers the worst of both worlds.

The political reaction to violent tragedies is rarely good for individual liberty. President Donald Trump's response to the weekend's mass shootings in Texas and Ohio is no exception.

On Monday morning, Trump tweeted that he would be willing to support more restrictions on gun ownership—and suggested linking those restrictions to congressional action on immigration.

"We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain," wrote the president. "Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"

In a brief speech Monday morning, Trump repeated his openness to more gun control measures but avoided any mention of immigration.

"Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside," said Trump. His remarks called for more red flag laws, which allow police to confiscate weapons from law-abiding gun owners if they are deemed potential threats.  The president also called on social media companies to develop tools to flag likely mass shooters, and he endorsed increased investments in mental health.

This is not the first time that Trump has floated the idea of more gun control regulations in the wake of mass shootings. His administration banned bump stocks following the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Trump isn't the only conservative voice calling for additional gun control measures either. The conservative New York Post editorial board called for a ban on "weapons of war" in a Monday front-page editorial.

"An assault weapons ban is aimed at the likes of the El Paso shooter, who coldly plotted how to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Let's make that a lot tougher for the next monster," reads the Post's editorial, which makes a direct appeal to Trump to support a renewed assault weapons ban.

The Post said additional restrictions on specific firearms should be part of a larger gun control package that would include red flag laws and expanded background checks.

Trump's speech today largely conformed to the Post's policy prescriptions, although the president's remarks notably fell short of embracing a new "assault weapons" ban.

The Post's op-ed editor, the right-wing nationalist Sohrab Ahmari, went further on Twitter by specifically calling out libertarians for their opposition to expanded gun control.

https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1157973653167968256

Democrats have renewed their calls for stepped-up gun control measures following the shootings over the weekend, but it seems doubtful that a majority would be willing to trade increased immigration restrictions to get them.

Zuri Davis contributed additional reporting to this article. 

 

Comments

[Longtobefree]

Repeal the second amendment, or shut up.
End ineffective and unconstitutional legislation attempts that have no effect.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Nice words, but that's not how government works.

Government always expands it control. Never shrinks. You want X? You get X, Y, and Z. And you don't get to change your mind once Y and Z have been thrown in for free. No backsies.

[loveconstitution1789]

We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying....
3:54 AM - 5 Aug 2019
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
5h5 hours ago

....this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform.

This is exactly what Trump said anyway. Since trump has not proposed any new gun control laws, one can infer that he means enforcing existing background checks.

All gun control is unconstitutional, including background checks, but the MSM has been pushing gun control Narrative since the shootings.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

...a ban on "weapons of war"

Meanwhile the NRA is consumed with infighting and paying off their crony lawyers; Trump is a wild card and could just as well use an executive order to ban high capacity magazines as he did with bump stocks, if it would mean getting something else he wanted. This crisis will indeed not go to waste. To make matters worse, it looks like it is going to up to Roberts in an otherwise equally divided court to decide if gun manufacturers can be sued for misuse of their products.

If there is anything you want or need, I'd get it now. Prices will be going up, and I can see where a lot of things may be going away.

[Kevin Smith]

The lawsuit isn't about misuse of products, its about how the gun was advertised. The misuse part of the case was already thrown out

[Quo Usque Tandem]

"...the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Remington, Busmaster's parent company, could be sued on state law because of how the rifle was marketed to the public, the Associated Press reported. A lower court judge had originally threw the case out, saying Remington was protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when a person commits a crime with one of their products."

Regardless, if they prevail the plaintiffs will get their "day in court" and sue Remington for damages, be it based on product or marketing. So, at this point, "what difference does it make?" Their goal is to put gun companies out of business BAMN.

[soldiermedic76]

Pretty sure the 1A protects marketing unless they can demonstrate that the company misrepresented the product. It would be a stretch, even for Roberts to conclude that a marketing campaign is misrepresenting the product.

[Jerryskids]

We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this.

[Jerryskids]

When this fails to fix the problem, it only proves that you didn't do enough of this.

[loveconstitution1789]

Crowd chants 'do something' as Ohio governor speaks during vigil for Dayton shooting victims

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ...
-Benjamin Franklin

I'm sure the young people at the vigil dont even know who Ben Franklin is.

[SQRLSY One]

Hey man! I GOT it, dammit!!!

If we MUST "do something", why don't we just outlaw murder?!?! And double-outlaw mass murder?!?!?

You're welcome!!!

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Ben Franklin is the Devil!

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Crowd chants "Four legs good! Two legs bad!"

[Teddy Pump]

Of course they do, he was a privileged white bastard! The dumb fuckers probably think he owned slaves too!

[Ken Shultz]

"We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain," wrote the president. "Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"

He's not saying the two issues are related. He's saying he's willing to give on something to get something else. I don't think there's much to worry about here if only because the Democrats would rather have another dozen mass shootings rather than build a wall or whatever else he means by "immigration reform". Oh, and the Democrats aren't likely to settle for stronger "background checks". If it doesn't involve banning 30 round magazines and/or AR-15s and AK-47s, then the Democrats aren't interested. That's what they mean by "common sense gun control".

The biggest long term threat to both gun rights and free speech may come from marrying gun control to the regulation of social media under the guise of "background checks". The Democrats would enthusiastically support denying people the right to purchase a gun based on what they've written online. Bringing the regulation of social media together with gun control is a dream come true for them. I'd hate to have to depend on a "penaltax", Kelo, Gonzales v. Raich, Supreme Court to protect our rights a "public interest" like that.

[John]

He is actually negotiating and giving his opponents an opportunity to compromise. People in politics and the media cannot understand such strange and exotic tactics.

[Ken Shultz]

And he's giving them an opportunity to expose themselves on both issues.

The Democrats don't want better background checks. They want to ban "assault weapons".

The Democrats don't want immigration reform. They want the whole country to become a sanctuary city.

[Ron]

on the subject of better back ground checks what would be a better back ground check? We already have back ground checks unless they just want a 10 day waiting period which doesn't improve the check it only makes it longer. Some people want training but all that does is improve the killers ability to kill.

[Ken Shultz]

See my comments elsewhere in this thread.

It's about marrying gun control with the regulation of social media.

If you're a progressive, why shouldn't posting something hateful on 8chan make you ineligible to purchase a gun?

Why shouldn't posting something hateful anywhere make you ineligible to purchase a gun?

[Ron]

so exercising your right to say hatefull things now allows the state to take away rights and who gets to determine what is hatefull. the left seems to think even mentioning a persons true gender is hatefull now. what other rights shall we limit due to hate.

I hope you are being sarcastic Ken Shultz

[Ken Shultz]

I'm not talking about the way it should be. I'm talking about the way it is.

There isn't anything about excluding people from gun purchases because of what they say online that progressives don't like.

That's they way it is whether I like it or not.

[mad.casual]

They want the whole country to become a weapons-free sanctuary city.

Just because they prioritize one issue over the other doesn't mean they don't want both.

[loveconstitution1789]

If Trump meant more gun control than just enforcing current background check rules, then Trump backed Lefties into a corner since they won't "DO SOMETHING" (relating to gun control) as the public is supposedly demanding.

Trump is pretty much saying shit of get off the pot.

[Dillinger]

>>>"Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside,"

for even more destructive neutrality yikes.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, when's the last time something they did in the name of bipartisanship that turned out to be a good thing?

[Dillinger]

depends who you're asking. Congress probably loves the Patriot Act.

[Eddy]

The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act?

[Dillinger]

lol

[awildseaking]

Background checks aren't gun control and the idea that we shouldn't change the procedures when both shooters passed their checks and legally bought their guns proves we need change. Most of these shooters are getting their guns legally and I think we can take our time monitoring these people, especially if they're so lazy that they're posting public manifestos on popular forums or talking about violent revolution on Twitter. We don't have to turn that process into an impediment for the 99.9% of gun owners who never commit any crimes and we could even liberalize gun ownership at the same time, like re-legalizing automatic weapons.

[John]

Of all of the recent mass shooters, the kid in Florida is the only one who would not have passed a background check. Background checks will do nothing to stop this.

[gandrew]

yes thats totally right

[gandrew]

https://mcdvoice.dev/

[awildseaking]

I'm just saying I'd love for the discourse to examine the background check process. While not American, I feel like Breivik could have been stopped because he built an ANFO bomb and was no farmer.

[Ken Shultz]

But that observation doesn't make people want to get rid of background checks--as Sullum and others seem to believe. If background checks won't help, that observation just makes people want to move on to banning gun and confiscating them.

[Ken Shultz]

"Background checks aren’t gun control"

Background check are gun control because they determine if you can or can't purchase a gun, and the more extensive they are, the more egregious the violation is of our rights.

If they decide that you can't purchase a gun since you're a racist--since the background check shows that you opposed affirmative action online--then that's certainly gun control.

If they decide that you can't purchase a gun since you're a xenophobe--since the background check shows that, online, you supported Trump building a wall--then that's certainly gun control.

If they decide that you can't purchase a gun since you're a homophobe--since the background check shows that you opposed gay marriage in your social media accounts--then that's certainly gun control.

And we haven't even started talking about people who believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm ourselves against a standing army of the United States in case we need to overthrow the government to protect our Constitutional rights, but there's no reason why they couldn't restrict gun sales by way of a background check on those people either.

Gun control certainly doesn't stop being gun control just because we decide to start calling it a "background check" or something else. If we're talking about using the coercive power of government to restrict the purchase and sale of guns, we're talking about gun control.

[awildseaking]

I understand the potential for abuse in a background check by forbidding thoughtcrime for potential gun buyers, but that argument falls flat just like the original 2A argument because we're nowhere close to that point. We don't have a tyrannical government that MUST be overthrown militarily and while it is certainly important to preserve that ability as part of our culture, saving lives today is very different from saving lives that may be in danger one day. I'm not naive and I realize the risk of sweeping background checks, but I really don't see the issue since most people will pass them and we'll still have the means of force to resist the government if need be. If they get to the point where violence is necessary, they're going to restrict 2A anyways. The Constitution won't matter to that sort of despotic government just like laws don't matter to criminals.

I'll gladly accept having to sue to expose potential future background check abuse in order to pursue the one legal remedy that might actually have an effect. Outright bans just shift the issue to another weapon of choice (imagine of Japan started instituting gasoline and fire starter control, England already has a hard on for knives). Background checks go after the root cause of the problem; the person.

I'm always sorting out my feelings and I'm not dead set on this opinion, but I do feel moved a bit to action when I realize that we're comparing a hypothetical abuse of my rights with the deaths of others. Similar to how I want every illegal immigrant deported due to the small percentage of them who commit violent crimes and I generally support abortion restrictions, I think violations of one's right to life are far more grave than violations of other rights that don't kill or injure you. When the two conflict, life should be given priority.

[Ken Shultz]

"I understand the potential for abuse in a background check by forbidding thoughtcrime for potential gun buyers, but that argument falls flat just like the original 2A argument because we’re nowhere close to that point."

The technology for the NSA to log our phone calls, sift through our emails, and scan our social media posts is already available.

The political will to drive people from their jobs because of what they say or think is already prevalent in the culture.

The Democrats are already swarming all over Facebook and Google specifically because they tolerate too much homophobia, racism, and xenophobia.

The idea that the government should punish social media for not censoring people's speech is already prevalent. The idea that people's Second Amendment rights should be restricted because of their speech is even easier to justify than that.

[Ken Shultz]

"We don’t have a tyrannical government that MUST be overthrown militarily and while it is certainly important to preserve that ability as part of our culture, saving lives today is very different from saving lives that may be in danger one day."

Meanwhile, the government was forcing nuns to finance the fornication of their employees and forcing fundamentalist Christians to bake cakes for gay weddings over their objections and against their will.

Meanwhile, every Democrat candidate is advocating some version of the Green New Deal, which contains these provisions:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution

They say they'll do what's necessary to achieve this within ten years.

[awildseaking]

And right now, most of this is rhetoric and the few actions they've taken have been defeated and resisted.

What I'm pushing for fundamentally is MAD applied within our borders. Let's give government the power it needs to actually stop a psycho, but let's also give the populace so much force that the govt wouldn't think twice about not expressing due diligence. And if they do, facing extreme consequences far worse than what we could do right now.

[Ken Shultz]

Okay, so the threat of the government violating our most fundamental property rights, and our First Amendment rights, may be imminent, but because they haven't actually implemented their plan for the kulaks yet, . . . you feel like running around with those goal posts is the right thing to do.

Good for you!

Meanwhile, the list of supporters for the Green New Deal includes the following:

Pete Buttigieg
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Supporters

[awildseaking]

I'm forcing the issue. If you really think we're on the precipice of genocide, let's confront the government about it. Most people realize that laws don't stop criminals, so why would laws stop criminal governments either?

[soldiermedic76]

So laws don't stop criminals but you are suggesting we pass more laws which will only increase the persecution of innocent, law abiding citizens? Do you understand cognitive dissonance?

[awildseaking]

Do you understand strawmans? I'm suggesting we pass laws that allow us to hold government accountable when they persecute innocent citizens and laws that will arm us substantially more than we are currently armed.

[soldiermedic76]

I think you don't understand straw men. You called for laws dealing with background checks and social media posts. You then state that laws restricting the government are useless if the government is criminal because criminals don't follow laws. Based upon your post above about looking more at background checks, and your post below about needing to better police social media "calls for violence" and then your admittance that criminals don't follow laws, the logical conclusion is that you are calling for laws you know criminals won't follow. The fact that you posted about Government doesn't diminish the logic of this conclusion. You post is not divorced from your other posts in this thread. If taken in abstract, I would be committing a straw man, but taken in consideration of all your other posts in this thread, your last post demonstrates cognitive dissonance.

[loveconstitution1789]

The US Constitution does not permit any government power to "prevent mind crimes".

People have to make active physical steps to planning or committing a crime before US states can intervene and that is based on their state constitutions and the 1st Amendment right to free speech and press which has no limitation on what topics you can discuss.

[sharmota4zeb]

The New Jersey gun laws require permission from a mental health professional before someone with a psych history buys a gun, and the evaluation for a ADHD diagnosis counts as a psych history. It is not just thought crimes. Failing to quickly learn your teacher's thoughts counts too.

[soldiermedic76]

ADHD is not a mental health issue any more than epilepsy of dyslexia (which is related to ADHD and Autism), what the holy fuck?

[Kevin Smith]

The problem is connecting the manifesto to the actual person. For the El Paso guy the police were actually investigating his posting already before the shooting but couldn't identify the real-life person who wrote until afterward

[Ken Shultz]

Are we really talking about siccing the police on people because of what they believe and what they say online?

An eco-terrorist is someone who violates people's rights in the name of ecology. It's the violating people's rights part that's the problem.

If they're advocating violence in some specific instance, I can see why that should be investigated. A general call for violence in the name of ecology, socialism, animal liberation, feminism, or any other cause should not trigger any police action at all.

The problem with what Valerie Solanas and Ted Kaczynski wasn't the manifestos they wrote. It was the violating people's rights part.

[Ron]

are you saying that if I want a gun i have to give up my right to say what i believe and be silent and that the government can now monitor my facebook just because i want a gun. they can't do that if i want to utilize any of the other constituitional rights why should I give up rights to use the 2nd right. of course that is the goal give up some rights to use any rights, it won't stop at guns. do you want to vote lets see your facebook page.

[loveconstitution1789]

Manifestos are protected speech.

There is literally nothing the government can or should do to a person saying or writing such things.

[awildseaking]

Manifestos advocating violence are incitement and are not protected speech.

[soldiermedic76]

As long as they are not actively threatening someone, and even then it is a gray area, they certainly are protected speech.

[awildseaking]

Explain how you can call for a violent uprising and not actively threaten someone.

[soldiermedic76]

Because the simple act of calling for it is protected by free speech. It only becomes criminal when you attempt to organize an uprising.

[SQRLSY One]

Yes, agreed.

One of the fine lines is here:
Conspiracy! We should be legally free to spout as much hatred as we want… Politically! “Let’s vote for the cops to kill all of the crackers”. OK, that’s political speech. Oppose it with nothing but words.

But when I say to you, “Let’s meet together in the alley at midnight, you bring guns, I bring toadstickers, and let’s go kill us some crackers”. That crosses the line into conspiracy to commit private violence, and should be opposed by the State.

When I am condemning the haters (you know they hang out here, from what they write), I am speaking about morality and ethics, not what is legal v/s illegal. It is clear to see, though, from history, that increasing levels of spoken hatred DO lead to violence! “I feel that random persons of Group A (liberal crackers) deserve to die because persons of Group B (AntiFa) has shit all over Purple People like me” is a recipe for civil war, if messages like this are repeated loudly enough and frequently enough!

[soldiermedic76]

Uhm, no. Generally violence occurs when the Government attempts to control behavior. It isn't the calls for violence but the Government reaction to those calls that causes violence.

[awildseaking]

You can't possibly rally people to do something that is inherently, unmistakably, 100% violent and then say it isn't criminal because they're not meeting in person and planning military operations and neighborhood sweeps for ethnic cleansing. There is no such thing as a non-violent way to discuss genociding people. The act is inherently violent.

[soldiermedic76]

No it is not. You can certainly discuss genocide without acting it out. You can call for violence without actually acting on it. Neither is violence and neither is illegal.

[soldiermedic76]

That they don't meet and plan makes it purely speech. It is detestable speech but that doesn't remove it's 1A protections.

[loveconstitution1789]

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Rights of Speech and Press are more protected than the right to keep and bear Arms.

[mad.casual]

Manifestos advocating violence are incitement and are not protected speech.

Have you read the manifestos to know this?

[awildseaking]

Yes, I always read these manifestos. They openly advocate for violent uprisings against perceived invaders. They're not talking about using civil means of maintaining cultural hegemony.

If Hitler came back to life and lead a popular Nazi party in the US, would you defend his "rights?" Or would you recognize exactly what his language indicates and silence him before he gains the traction necessary to destroy society?

[mad.casual]

Yes, I always read these manifestos. They openly advocate for violent uprisings against perceived invaders.

The Dayton Shooter did this?

If Hitler came back to life and lead a popular Nazi party in the US, would you defend his “rights?”

Do the undead have rights? If it was just a shambling husk of Hitler, I don't think it has any rights. I don't think reanimated Hitler has the political clout in this country that you think he would.

[awildseaking]

Jury is still out on the Dayton shooter's Twitter acct, but he's used rather violent rhetoric in the past. A lot of terrorists frequently state that they're tired of waiting and that's what pushes them to action on their violent policies.

[soldiermedic76]

NWA rapped about killing cops and whitey, was that criminal? No it was protected speech.

[soldiermedic76]

Well since we already have a Nazi party, albeit a small one (not using this as a Euphemism) and as despicable as Hitler's message may be, yes he is protected by free speech.

[mad.casual]

Well since we already have a Nazi party, albeit a small one (not using this as a Euphemism) and as despicable as Hitler’s message may be, yes he is protected by free speech.

Private citizens are perfectly within their rights to sever zombie Hitler's brain from his brain stem. Agents acting on behalf of the government are not.

[awildseaking]

Unless those Nazis can prove that their ideology doesn't lead to genocide, they should not be protected by free speech. They cannot possibly be non-violent in any way, shape or form and their ideology itself is incitement. There's no reason to be a Nazi other than to kill Jews. Just because they're diminished and a joke doesn't change anything.

[soldiermedic76]

There is no clause in the Constitution covering hate speech. There is no reason to be a Nazi other than to kill Jews? Really? Because history would argue a number of people joined the Nazi party for a variety of reasons. That is a fucking imbecilic remark.

[Chipper Jones]

Would I support different positions if I could travel through both time and the multiverse and see exactly how each possible scenario might play out? Sure. Unfortunately I don't have those powers, so I'll stick with my default of opposing efforts by the government to shit on people's rights.

[loveconstitution1789]

awildseaking I think the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence clearly undermine your claim that discussing violence towards other is not protected speech.

The Delcaration of Independence specifically says that:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The People have a right to alter or abolish destructive forms of government and institute new government. How else do you abolish an armed government that does not want to lose their jobs? Violence.

[awildseaking]

Violence against the government now applies to violence against the people? I'm pretty sure you can stop people who incite violence.

[soldiermedic76]

How?

[awildseaking]

What do you mean how? You charge them with incitement and prosecute them. Or if they're in the middle of their plotting and have started to take actions, you go after them the same way we deal with any other suspected terrorist.

[soldiermedic76]

So define inciting? When NWA rapped about killing cops was it incitement? If not, why not, who determines if it is or isn't? Incitement by itself, the courts have ruled, is not criminal. So no you can't just charge them for inciting. You have to demonstrate intent and usually means. Words by themselves are not criminal.

[loveconstitution1789]

Background checks ARE gun control and therefore in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

People get denied their constitutional right to keep and bear Arms based on whatever the criteria for denial happens to be.

[awildseaking]

Just curious, what does the Constitution say about felons losing rights? Or is it common law? Can't you strip rights from people who are in fact plotting to commit crimes?

[soldiermedic76]

Plotting is one thing, as long as they don't begin to actively seek to do it. For example my brother and I can discuss robbing the Indian Casino back home, that is fine and legal, but if we try to recruit and inside guy that shows intent and can be criminal.

[soldiermedic76]

As for criminals getting their rights back, pretty sure you came to the wrong website to argue against that. Yes, felons who have served their time should get their rights back.

[awildseaking]

That's not what I said. Most people here agree for practical reasons that felons don't have 2A and certain other rights while in prison. I asked these questions because there are in fact legal and perfectly Constitutional times where 2A is infringed. If that is the case, then an avenue exists to restrict 2A to terrorists in the act. That's the whole point of what I originally posted; to make the background check process extensive enough that terrorist plots like these can be uncovered before it's too late. The devil is in the details and that's why I was asking about the basis for restricting 2A rights in other situations.

[soldiermedic76]

Actually, you didn't specify in prison. You just stated felons can get their rights back. This now feels like you are moving the goal posts. The only restrictions that people may agree on is during imprisonment. But after sentence is served, many would argue that they should receive their rights back. There are almost no cases where infringement is acceptable. Your example of terrorism requires they be actively involved in terrorism. They are being arrested for this terrorist act. There is no way without invading gunowners privacy, to make background checks deep enough to prevent terrorism or uncover them. Are you truly suggesting the government should go through people's social media and decide who is and isn't fit to own a gun? So besides a violation of the 2A, you are proposing a violation of the 1A, the 4A and the 5A. Wow, six more and you can completely throw out the bill of rights (actually if the federal government is doing this, it likely violates the 9A and 10A as well). About the only amendment this may not break if taken to it's logical conclusion is the 3A (and that even gets dicey).

[soldiermedic76]

Or for a more classical example was the Bard from Avon inciting violence when he wrote "first kill all lawyers"?

[mad.casual]

Most of these shooters are getting their guns legally and I think we can take our time monitoring these people, especially if they’re so lazy that they’re posting public manifestos on popular forums or talking about violent revolution on Twitter. We don’t have to turn that process into an impediment for the 99.9% of gun owners who never commit any crimes and we could even liberalize gun ownership at the same time, like re-legalizing automatic weapons.

Sacrifice the 1A to save the 2A? Today's Manifesto: I'll keep my guns and my free speech, thanks.

[AlbertP]

And, years from now, when occasional lunatics still manage to kill a bunch of people, in spite of "assault weapons" bans and "expanded" background checks, and when the homicide rate doesn't go down, and when the number of people entering the country isn't affected by a "wall," BOTH sides will say: "We didn't do enough.... we have to do more." And they will. And their efforts will be just as bootless.

This type of insanity is all too common.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Huh, so at least according to Sohrab Ahmari, national conservatism is now pro-gun control.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Or I suppose he's just a petulant child taking any opportunity to bash us wicked libertarians.

[Fist of Etiquette]

This president was always shaky on Second Amendment protections. It was bound to happen.

[AlbertP]

It's not "shaky," it just moves around a lot. Oh, wait....

[mad.casual]

It’s not “shaky,” it just moves around a lot.

In 12 Dimensions, keeping things fixed can be difficult.

[loveconstitution1789]

The Lefties hoped Trump would institute more gun control measures.

He advocated enforcing background checks in his Tweet.

All gun control is unconstitutional, so he's wrong to advocate background checks and his Adminstration's ban on bump stocks.

[AlmightyJB]

When middle school kid tells people about his rape-murder fantasies and then as a high schooler creates kill and rape lists, and no adult tries to get home the mental help he needs, that is the problem.

[AlmightyJB]

If he didn't end up being a school shooter with a semi-auto, he would have ended up being a sexual sadist and serial killer with ropes and knives.

[AlbertP]

Yep, and the truth is, nothing the federal or State governments can decree will change that. This is a problem which needs recognizing and addressing, initially, by the family, friends, and neighbors.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I know, right?
Evidently the guy was expelled from highschool for compiling his "kill lists" and "rape lists".
In fairness we don't know what his parents tried to do for him in terms of getting help. Maybe they did nothing, maybe the kid just refused to get help despite their parents' pleas, maybe the kid got help but it wasn't that helpful.

[Cynical Asshole]

There's no idea so bad that it can't be made worse with a little "compromise."

[Cynical Asshole]

“What about gangland killings in Chicago? The Founders, the Founders . . . .” the libertarian gun absolutist said as mass killers bathed two American cities in the blood of innocents in fewer than 24 hours.

This libertarian gun absolutist says "fuck off, slaver."

[chemjeff radical individualist]

They really are determined to demonstrate how much they loathe libertarians, aren't they?

[Eddy]

From the Post editorial:

"One of the big reasons that crime has fallen so far in New York City is a crackdown on guns. Their ownership is restricted, and the NYPD is focused on getting illegal ones off the street. Gun control works."

[AlbertP]

ALL seven major crimes stats in NYC show a steady decline, including rape, robbery, assault, burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft. Since firearms are rarely used in burglary, grand larceny, rape, and auto theft, can one assume "gun control" had some effect there?

Stats from the NYPD: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/historical-crime-data/seven-major-felony-offenses-2000-2018.pdf

[soldiermedic76]

This is pandering pure and simple. Red flag laws are constitutionally questionable at best, although we will wait to see what lip service (or actual protections) they provide for due process. Personally, I am not hopeful, as those laws that have been passed at the state level are gross violations of due process, not to mention the 2A. Hopefully, the Democrats reflexive dislike of Trump will abort this abomination. Unfortunately, it seems like the only time anything bipartisan gets done it is either a violation of liberties or to increase spending and debt.

[Rich]

Red flag laws are constitutionally questionable at best

I keep waiting for someone to make the leap that anyone perceived as *that* dangerous should also not be allowed (temporarily, of course) to drive, vote, post on line, talk to children, ....

[Eddy]

Voter suppression!

People should be allowed to sublimate their violent, even psycopathic, urges into voting - what could possibly go wrong with that?

[soldiermedic76]

Only if it removed minorities (including sexual preference and self identity) or progressive whites. If you are from a red state, and voted for the Constitution party, the LP or the GOP, they'll be all okay with it.

[Incomprehensible Bitching]

Background checks for gun owners... common sense.

Background checks for foreigners coming into the US... you’re a Nazi.

Sounds legit.

[Rich]

Well said.

[loveconstitution1789]

+100

[Rich]

"Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside."

"Now is the time to ban the use of 'Now is the time to'."

[Eddy]

Here's hoping that the mere fact Trump endorsed gun control will make the Dems suspicious of it.

Wait until they start asking whether red-flag laws will have a disproportionate impact on "communities of color."

[Eddy]

I think Dems actually believe the media line that if someone goes on a shooting spree, it's probably a crazy white boy.

But here's where the Chicago shootings (mocked by Mr. Sahib) come into play - guess who's going to be getting red-flagged? Until Chicago finally comes to its senses and passes common-sense gun control. I understand that Chicago law at present allows anyone to have a gun (/sarc).

[Ken Shultz]

When I was into hardcore as a kid, the guys who got into the racist skinhead scene often had things in common with guys who get into other destructive subcultures--all over the world. They guys in the Muslim world who become terrorists and suicide bombers, the guys who become soldiers for gangs in LA Country, etc. In that latter bunch, the gang leaders convince those kids from prison that spending their lives in prison is unavoidable--and the kids become hardcore soldiers anyway.

When you're 14 or so, you're supposed to start thinking about girls a lot, and by the time you're 18 or so, you're supposed to have been successful in that regard. You're supposed to be able to get a woman in your life on a fairly permanent basis, and you're supposed to be able to support yourself. You're supposed to able to support your kid if you have one, and you're supposed to be able to look in the mirror and think you're basically okay--even if you aren't wealthy. Take all that away from a guy when he's 16 or so, and he can become really violent.

For hardcore soldiers in a gang who are headed to a life in prison at best, for the suicide bombers and terrorists of the Muslim world, for the hardcore right-wing guys who decide they'd rather go out in a hail of bullets or spend their lives in prison for being a mass shooter, these are all people who've been persuaded that they don't have any better options. It's a lot easier to persuade people of that when they have few options.

The economy has never been better for unskilled workers, and if that situation persists, I'd expect fewer of these kinds of people to show up in our society and turn violent. There's a lag, however, and all the 16 -24 year old kids who already missed their opportunities and have already gone down the wrong road, they may not be able to get back on track again. Even for them, though, the long term solution isn't about gun control. It has to be about giving more people more opportunities to do something better than spending their lives in prison or dying in a hail of gunfire.

[loveconstitution1789]

China devalues currency

The Chinese government devalued the yuan to fall below its 7-to-1 ratio with the US dollar for the first time in a decade Monday. A weaker currency could soften the blow the United States has dealt China with its tariffs.

Hahaha. China wont make it to Election 2020.

America! Fuck Yeah!

I can't wait to see Boehm try to explain how China devaluing their currency means anything but Trump's strategy is working and working fairly fast. What, just over 1 year?

[loveconstitution1789]

Sorry. Supposed to have posted that in (T)reason Roundup.

[John]

18 people were shot in three hours in Chicago last weekend. I think the complete breakdown of society and government in Democratic cities like Chicago and Baltimore is a lot bigger problem than the occasional nut blowing a gasket and shooting some people.

[sharmota4zeb]

Like Detroit, some cities get sent down the memory hole to preserve the narrative.

[loveconstitution1789]

At this point, most MSM is ignoring the Ohio shooting full story to push the El Paso "anti-immigrant" Narrative.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I think one could make an argument that there's a fundamental difference between 18 different incidents which are likely based around a general societal issue (poverty, welfare) which is diffused throughout a population, vs a single attack that specifically targeted people shopping in a department store-- and all casualties occurred in a 5 minute period.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I mean, not to be a racist dick, but to be a racist dick, if I hear about a spate of shootings in the 'bad part of town', I'm concerned, but I'm concerned in a very meta way. Let's call it an 'bourgeois, upper middle class way'. I worry about the state of institutional discrimination, community resources going to the most effective place, welfare reform and ultimately, I make a note not to go into that neighborhood after a certain hour-- or at all.

But when the Fred Meyer down the street where you regularly shop gets shot up by yet another manifesto writer, it concerns me. Just like it concerns me more when two gangbangers shoot into a crowd in a neighborhood I or my daughter do frequent.

[mad.casual]

I think one could make an argument that there’s a fundamental difference between 18 different incidents which are likely based around a general societal issue (poverty, welfare) which is diffused throughout a population, vs a single attack that specifically targeted people shopping in a department store– and all casualties occurred in a 5 minute period.

Yeah, much fewer suspects and/or repeat offenders. Not to be a pedantic dick, but to be a pedantic dick, I don't much distinguish between 18 people shot in 18 separate incidents, three people shot in each of 6 incidents, or two people shot in nine as much as Chicago *and* Baltimore racking up 18, weekend after weekend, while El Paso and Dayton rack up a one-off incident. The odds of Fred Meyer getting shot by a manifesto author are probably pretty similar to him getting shot by a felon from the south side because somebody swerved out of their lane.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Not to be a pedantic dick, but to be a pedantic dick, I don’t much distinguish between 18 people shot in 18 separate incidents, three people shot in each of 6 incidents, or two people shot in nine as much as Chicago *and* Baltimore racking up 18, weekend after weekend, while El Paso and Dayton rack up a one-off incident.

I do. Context still matters. If a drug deal goes bad and someone shoots three people across the table piled up with meth, that's three deaths by gunfire.

If a crazy person shoots three children standing at a popsicle stand because the voices told him two, that's three deaths by gunfire. Most people will characterize the second three as being markedly different than the first three.

I'm not making any statements about my personal chances to be caught in either category, I'm merely noting that it's understandable that people will tend to perceive and thus categorize those deaths in different ways.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If Trump passes more effective gun control than Obama did, the Democrats will finally be #winning.

[Gregdn]

I like Common Sense Gun Control™
It has such a nice ring to it!

[Brandybuck]

Tell me again why Republicans are behind this twit?

Now that gun control is on the table, are there any Republican values that haven't been flushed down the MAGA toilet? Oh wait... they still have the pro-life stance. At least until Trump offers that up in exchange for funding the wall.

Not that I agreed with everything they ever claimed to stand for, but the idea that the GOP was the party of principle is now shown to have been a giant lie.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

It'll be curious to see how much support on the right Trump gets here.

[soldiermedic76]

I expect he will change his mind or tune. Especially as the Democrats have rejected his offer, rather vulgarly. Note: I am not defending him, nor suggesting he is playing nth dimensional chess. Things like this are the reasons I voted against him in 2016 and an only reluctantly considering him in 2020.

[Eddy]

This is certainly an effective rebuttal to anyone here who claimed that the Republicans are a party of principle - let me know when you've found those people so we can all make them feel deeply ashamed at their naivete.

[Uncle Jay]

"The president offers the worst of both worlds."

Why is it we're not surprised?

[jsnider]

Because this isn't the first time he's done something stupid.

[fafalone]

I was legit shocked at the Post's editorial this morning. It had all the misleading bullshit of typical far left antigun nuts, and actually in noting previous cosmetic definitions of 'assault rifle' basically called for banning all semiautomatic rifles under the banner. Had to double check where I was after encountering that far left trash instead of their usual far right trash.

[SQRLSY One]

Also maybe we should outlaw Tulpoopy, who stinks up our threads...

[loveconstitution1789]

Poor dum dum you are.

[soldiermedic76]

Even inciting violence, if you can't demonstrate intent and means is usually not considered criminal.

[loveconstitution1789]

Wrong spot. Sorry Tulpa.

[SQRLSY One]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtmJZ1ATFKM

nazareth - Please Don't Judas Me - Hair of the Dog

You can't Judas me, you are wasting your time! However, you CAN Judas yourself, and you sure seem intent on doing it!

Where do you think Judas is now? Stop now, before it's too late!

[Quo Usque Tandem]

It's Hihn all right; he must have been locked up in the bug house for several months but they eventually let him out.

Take your meds like your psychiatrist prescribed, Hihn. It's for your own good.

Should never have gotten rid of institutional care.

[soldiermedic76]

Tulpa, as much as I disagree with ChemJeff etc, your constant fuck off is almost as bad.

[SQRLSY One]

NEVER apologize to TulPoopy! It only encourages him-her-it to threadshit some more!

[markm23]

Another way to put those numbers in perspective: There were 4,414 confirmed Allied dead on D-Day. So the numbers killed by their own governments in the 20th Century amounted to more than one D-Day 365 days a year for 100 years.