MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump: 'Take the Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second'

This from a guy who bemoaned the lack of due process just weeks ago.

ScreenCap, HuffPostScreenCap, HuffPostPresident Donald Trump, who campaigned as a defender of gun rights, told a bipartisan group of politicians today that authorities should have simply taken away Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz's weapons:

"The police saw that he was a problem, they didn't take any guns away. Now, that could've been policing. They should've taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not."

"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump emphasized. And he said this:

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

This comes from a president who only a few weeks ago wondered aloud on Twitter, "Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?":

Here's the reaction of longtime gun-control supporter Sen. Dianne Feinstein to Trump's suggestion that an "assault weapons" ban be added to legislation from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would expand background checks:

Is this truly a Nixon-Goes-To-China moment, in which the Republican Trump, who also said today that he "loves the Second Amendment," will restrict gun ownership more than any president since Bill Clinton signed the assault-weapons ban into law in 1994? That remains to be seen, as Trump has double-reversed course in the past, such as when he agreed to legalize "Dreamers" in a deal with Democratic lawmakers before changing his mind. In the meantime, Trump's criticism of the NRA and embrace of gun control is leaving progressives as bewildered as it is making conservatives angry as hell:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    If Cruz was in jail pending trial for making criminal threats....

  • DiegoF||

    That is true, but not what Trump said. Then again, this is hardly a surprise. I don't think any of us voted for Trump out of attraction to his due-process rhetoric. The wager is that for all the bluster it won't do as much damage to freedom as his opponents threatened to. So far the wager is paying off. I'm not getting cocky though; Trump campaigned as a Feinnstein Democrat on No Fly No Buy. Paul Ryan's job is now to quietly but firmly say, no, we are not doing this.

    I do fear without more active pushback against the premises of this "mass shooting" moral panic--something conservatism seems constitutionally unable to manage--this will all just pick up next time, with the narrative gaining strength each time.

  • Libertymike||

    Are you looking at the entirety of matters in proclaiming that "so far the wager is paying off?"

    How about all of the swamp creatures he has appointed and hired? Someone truly committed to draining the swamp would never have appointed a Jeff Sessions or Goldman money changers like Gary Cohn or Steve Mnuchin.

    How about his support for communist, progressive, socialist, totalitarian legislation such as the bill the House passed today which provides for retro-active prosecution of platforms which provide for sex ads?

    How about his support from more communist, progressive, socialist, totalitarian gun grabbing legislation?

    He is proving to be every bit as bad as the Nigerian Negro.

    Has he championed the outright elimination of any of the following:

    IRS

    FBI

    CIA

    Voice of America

    NSA

    Homeland Security

    DEA

    The Dotard wants to amp up the drug war.

    He wants to amp up the military. Look, he jerks off to cops and soldier boys. Any body that does that, is not a friend of liberty.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    this

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So far he's been definitely mixed. I never believed he was going to be some special savior and so I guess I was less disappointed overall with him.

  • DiegoF||

    All I said was "he has not done as much damage to freedom as his opponents threatened to." I still would have preferred Cruz. (I am a Democrat so I could not vote for him in the primary.) Apart from him and maybe a couple others, I don't think so far Trump has really proven any worse on anything than any of them--and far better on some things than several of them!

    If one iota of the shit he said today in the meeting was serious, then fuck him, and fuck anyone who continues to apologize for him. (Even here still, if it actually passes Congress, then it turns out his fellow Republicans were just as bad so we can hardly say he didn't turn out to be a good bet against the establishment.)

  • buybuydandavis||

    And Hillary would have been better on how many of those things?

    Trump has been better than anyone of the usual contenders would have been on immigration and the press. By far.

    And those are the battles that count. Long run, they determine the rest.

  • Tony||

    The desperation in this comment is almost audible.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Which part of Trump's immigration performance do faux libertarians like better -- the general authoritarianism or the right-wing bigotry?

    For most of them, I think it always distills most plainly to the bigotry.

  • Some Jerk||

    This

    ........minus the bigoted "Nigerian Negro" remark

  • Nige||

    You can't. It's intrinsic.

  • Tony||

    You're admitting to voting for him? What a fucking moron.

    How quickly you idiots become compromisers, hypocrites, and pragmatists when there's an (R) after someone's name.

  • hpearce||

    seems to be a disagreement on what Trump said

    " Key part of Trump's "take the guns early" quote left out - specifically says "in this crazy man's case" i.e. Florida shooter"

  • Jerryskids||

    That don't even make sense. Take the shooter's guns early? He wasn't a shooter at that time. If you wait until he's a shooter to take his guns, the only way to take his guns early is to have access to a time machine. There's millions of people that make crazy threats, if you take all of their guns away early, you've got a conflict with the Constitution.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Clearly Trump means to bring back the Timecop program. The only question is whether he'll appoint Van Damme or Seagal to head it up.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Or Majority Report.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Timecop has a weight requirement, so Seagal is out.

  • DiegoF||

    True. Besides, he will be needed to take care of reluctant Senators. And you can take that to the bank.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Though Adam Scott is also a Time Cop and he seems more enjoyable to work with.

  • Mauser||

    I think at some point ideally the crazy shit should not have acquired those guns given all the signs but with freedom comes risk, there is simply no way to 100% avoid all tragedies. Trump is wrong in so many different ways on guns but then again he is the personification of the two party system - what more proof do we need that both parties are essentially the same - just look at Trump, he switched parties before and basically gives two shits less about anyone's personal freedoms no matter where they stand politically.

  • Horatio||

    But he fights!

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    You quote Lincoln on Grant, right? To suggest a comparison to Trump?

    Grant was a military genius, and, in the context of his time, a moral exemplar far ahead of compatriots. Few Americans since have taken as much personal risk for the sake of moral policy as Grant did—during a time when public support for doing that was even harder to come by than it is today.

    Trump is bewildered. He doesn't fight; he flails. Apparently—and literally—morality means nothing at all to him. I suppose there is a comparison, but not one Trump's supporters can make without disgracing themselves by suggesting it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The kid threatened many with violence. Actually prosecute some of that, and massacre would have been averted.

  • ||

    Bingo. The same could be said in the prior case of Trayvon, push it off until it becomes a catastrophe.

  • Jerryskids||

    I keep telling you, Trump lacks a filter. Whatever thought pops in his head just falls right out his mouth. It's like some weird amalgam of autism and Tourette's.

  • Eidde||

    Whatever it is, it got him where he is today.

    The only question is where it's getting *us.*

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Running against Hillary got him where he is today.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's called being a New Yorker.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its funny though because gun grabbers are collectively holding their breath that Trump will institute gun control.

    He's pushing the issue on bureaucrats who take time and then the next news cycle will start.

    He might even be trolling gun grabbers to get their hopes up and then shut them down with some excuse. Its hilarious.

  • Microaggressor||

    That would be wonderful.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    And if not? If Trump institutes any of these gun control ideas that he's rambling about, what will be your position on his presidency then?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Glad that he's been choosing people that are likely to not allow erosion of the 2nd amendment to the courts?

    If you believe Trump is playing n-dimensional chess, I think a good case could be made based on the last several gun banning frenzies that the backlash has been very good for Republicans.

    Not that I like Republicans much, but I'm certainly with them when they defend the right to own guns.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's wishful thinking

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Trump was a NYC liberal his whole life. Best buddies with the last president to sign a ban on "assault weapons".

    If he betrayed them when it was convenient, what makes you think he won't betray us too when it's convenient?

  • SIV||

    Secretary of State Mitt Romney agrees.

    Watch what Trump does, not what he says.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Moynihan is found of saying that the person Trump is most persuaded by is the last one he talked to. Trump is an idiot.

  • Eidde||

    "Nixon Goes to China"

    Or Monroe accepts federal appropriations for internal improvements.

    Or Chester Arthur signs the Pendleton Act.

    Man, I'm stuffed full of useless knowledge.

  • DiegoF||

    "I am a Stalwart, and Arthur is President now."

    Still simply, no-nonsense the most badass assassination words for the ages to remember. Fuck that "sic semper tyrannis" foofoo drama queen bullshit.

  • Mauser||

    Feinstein practically creamed her pantsuit when Trump suggested an assault weapons ban.

  • Eidde||

    That's a video I very much want to *not* watch.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I just ate?

  • Libertymike||

    What, you don't find that eupeptic?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Creme Fraiche fucking gross.

  • CoCoB||

    Is that a Fenstein pantsuit cream mustache I see on your face?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Aw fuck, really?

  • TLBD||

    In the meantime, Trump's criticism of the NRA and embrace of gun control is leaving progressives as bewildered as it is making conservatives angry as hell:

    It is making this libertarian pretty irritated as well.

    As far as his due process comments I'm sure he is going to clarify them. It looks like it meant if you have reasonable cause to take the guns (ie a clear and present danger) you must do so before the entire process is played out (to the point when found guilty). Sort of like how DUIs are handled, I guess. I don't know. If he doesn't take it back or clarify I'll also be pissed about this.

  • Horatio||

    Fuck him.

    See how that didn't need clarification, justification, pretzel logic, or 8D chess rules to suss out? Hopefully the inevitable flip flop on the "wall" occurs soon those still surgically attached to his cock can find the will to criticize him.

  • TLBD||

    The problem is that with Trump there is always more beneath the surface.

    This meme that he is a moron is ridiculous. Only actual morons believe that.

    That said, it is really hard to tell what his real stances are on things because he is always, always playing games. On one hand, I'm glad to see him school the Democrats, on the other, I don't know what the fuck he is thinking half the time. Many of the conservatives say "Trust Trump". Well I'll be fucked if I ever trust a politician, even if it is his first time in office. So yeah, fuck him on gun control until he proves otherwise at this point.

  • Nativerage||

    His next move will go like this. Trump, "I hate the holocaust... but don't forget to put the middle class in Rhodes fema camps. That needs to be done next." I'm done. I have had more civilized conversations with militia men! Never again Trump. Enjoy two more years in the white house while you can.

    On to the next poll, Should the feds continue their useless existence. I don't think so.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Take the guns first, from our cold, dead hands.

    Maybe that's what he said.

  • Mauser||

    "The police saw that he was a problem, they didn't take any guns away. Now, that could've been policing. They should've taken them away anyway, whether they had the right or not."

    No shit dipstick in chief, how bout focusing on the failures of all levels of government in this tragedy (and others) instead of slamming the NRA. This entire meeting was a showcase of big government - what a bunch of sniveling little weasels.

  • Horatio||

    Are John, Ken and all the other Trump whisperers out there finally starting to doubt this guy?

    (haha who am I kidding)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Trump does it, then its unconstitutional.

    If Trump is trolling gun grabbers, it will be priceless.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I propose a new paradigm: Uncivil liberties.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Taking uncivil liberties with the opposite sex is now illegal in Canada. FACT.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Time to move the border north 100 miles. Sorry, map-making error.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "Fuck you, process?"

  • AlmightyJB||

    If it offends me, how can it be a constitutional right?

  • Pro Libertate||

    These days, that's what a constitutional right is, to take offense.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Nuh-uh, the Fifth Amendment says I get due process before my fence can be taken away.

  • Longtobefree||

    Bullshit.
    Tell that to the EPA when they say you cannot do X with what you thought was your property with out due process.
    Tell the cops who take your car and all your cash that the fourth amendment prohibits that without due process
    Tell the Title IX kangaroo court that they are ignoring your due process rights.
    The constitution is dead and buried except for the part of Jefferson's letter that the progs use to restrict religion.
    "To Arms! To arms! The dems are coming!"
    "Wait what?" *Yawn*

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    But it's written!

  • n00bdragon||

    Only if it's the right kind of woke offense. Taking offense to the wrong thing is 2-10 years in the economic gulag.

  • GILMORE™||

    Charlie Spiering‏ @charliespiering

    Key part of Trump's "take the guns early" quote left out - specifically says "in this crazy man's case" i.e. Florida shooter

    I've not seen or heard any actual quote from Trump's mouth. Is it possible he's been misquoted?

    I don't mean to impugn the spotless journalistic integrity of "Mediaite".... but there have been prior examples where secondhand reporting of "gibberish that trump spews" was crafted/massaged after-the-fact to mean what sensationalizing-journos would most-prefer-it-to-mean for the sake of click-generation.

  • Manchurian||

    I watched it all. If you only saw the written transcript you wouldn't be able to distinguish Trump from Feinstein.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    He was not misquoted. He went on about "taking the guns" for 20-30 seconds, and in response to Pence's spiel about honoring due process.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Correction: he interrupts Pence's spiel to reiterate that guns should be taken before going to court.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Even so, is it possible he was talking for 30 seconds about taking guns from people like Cruz?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Well, yes, the discussion is about taking guns from the mentally ill. Is anyone interpreting this quote as referring to disarming the entire populace or something?

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Is anyone interpreting this quote as referring to disarming the entire populace or something?""

    Twitter

  • DiegoF||

    Well if you oppose due process and only want to take guns away from "bad people" you are not really any kind of friend of the 2A, because you are all but constructing its gallows. But tell that to the NRA, who are better than the general "pro-gun" population (and therefore a force for good, when all is said and done) but still inexcusable squishes.

    That said there is of course a big difference in at least the culture of the moment, the tenor of the debate, if we are not yet openly talking about banning something for everyone.

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm not sure what that's a response to.

    I was simply saying that twitter is having quite a tizzy over these remarks.

  • DiegoF||

    Not intended as a rebuttal to anything you said.

  • ||

    Yeah, the general notion that the due process would reach the confiscate conclusion either way.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Without due process. That's the important part.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And if it's saying remove due process for the mentally ill then you're basically giving the government discretion for everyone, as anyone can be attributed with some mental illness.

  • GILMORE™||

    You will forgive me for considering the outraged-reaction-tweets to be less than robust-evidence

    if you actually posted the transcript, your say-so would be far more convincing

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    But maybe the transcript was altered by the shifty TDS media, too! A truly independent and skeptical mind would not be so easily convinced by a supposed "transcript" hosted on CNN.

    You're a joke, Gilmore.

    I watched the fucking clip, that's where my say-so comes from. And what's with this "not a direct quote" line above? It is a direct quote, direct from Trump's mouth. That's what the quotation marks are for.

  • GILMORE™||

    But maybe the transcript was altered by the shifty TDS media, too! A truly independent and skeptical mind would not be so easily convinced by a supposed "transcript" hosted on CNN.

    You're a joke, Gilmore.

    I think you mean, "your strawman parody of things not even remotely close to what i actually said".

    I think writing an article like this, and sourcing "hysterical tweets from fellow journos" rather than the raw transcript, is less than ideal journalism.

    I appreciate your personal vouching for the meaning of his statements, but it isn't really any more helpful. if this offends you deeply, i apologize.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah MJ, like you don't know how advanced video editing techniques are these days. They can make you say anything.

  • ||

    But can they keep up with Trump?

  • Hugh Akston||

    There are two video clips in the Mediaite link of the actual words escaping from Trump's mouth.

  • Libertymike||

    I can forgive you as the log in my eye.....

  • ||

    Is it possible he's been misquoted?

    Not really. It's possible he's being taken *slightly* out of context like it sounds more like crazy, constitution-free spitballing rather than a specific policy prescription. But still, Pence throws him a nice, fat watermelon of a pitch and he decides to bunt into foul territory.

  • greasonable||

    Yo! Are you still having issues with greasonable? I tested it in Firefox without a problem, even after upgrading both Firefox and Greasemonkey..

  • GILMORE™||

    Hey man,

    it mostly works - at least the filters do.

    last i checked (running opera, with Tampermonkey), the html buttons on the top of the dialogue box simply post the comment (like 'submit') if you hit them. Also, last i refreshed, i get no HTML options at all on 'reply' comments, but they do appear in the comment box at the bottom of the page.

    I just relaunched in ffox, and the html optons appear at the top. i will click them and see if it....

  • GILMORE™||

    yes, in ffox 58 it wasn't working, and just posted the comment when i tried to italicize text.

    *i manually just updated it, and will try again now

  • GILMORE™||

    nope

    it says its version 0.9.6.1. running in tampermonkey (which i switched to bcuz i thought i might work). just posts when you try and use the HTML features on comments.

  • greasonable||

    Which would you prefer to use? Let's debug that one.. If you could open the javascript console before testing, then look for any errors from greasonable, that would help.

  • GILMORE™||

    test test test

  • GILMORE™||

    You know, for a second there i thought i'd figured it out.

    i just tried testing something over on the other thread...

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/02.....nt_7158776

    and it worked A-ok.

    what i did was i disabled monocle, which is basically the "Greasonable" of the glibertarians site.

    but i come back to this thread... and when i try same thing

  • GILMORE™||

    it just does the same thing - posts when you click the html buttons.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I'm using Chrome.

    When I click "reply to this" I don't get ant html options. When I click "async reply" I do.

  • greasonable||

    Async reply is my crown jewel. I will burn this mother to the ground before disrespecting it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Agree. I mostly use async reply over reply to this, so not having the HTML options in the reply to this block isn't really a big deal.

    Just something I noticed.

  • greasonable||

    I don't remember if it was deliberate, probably just that the new reply was already in place when I started to do the formatting and didn't think to do it on the other form.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You do good work. Thank you.

  • μ Aggressor||

    I did not know of this greasonable until now, that other one on chrome (was it "reasonable") quit working ages ago so thanks!

  • Manchurian||

    The Cruz kid had swastikas carved into his magazines and his online comments suggest he hated Jews, blacks and gays, but liked Donald Trump so it's possible there was a terrorist motive behind the attack so Trump's disregard of due process isn't so inconsistent as it may appear given his past declarations on Islamic inspired terrorism.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • DiegoF||

    I bet lots of 19 year old kids named Cruz were responsible for that shit too.

  • BigT||

    When he talks with Donkeys he turns blue - DACA, gun quote - but he usually returns to form later denying he ever said it.

  • Horatio||

    I get it now! You see, all the other cucks in congress can bury their compassion for dead kids with a mere 9 grand or so. For the NRA to own Trump they're going to have to REALLY pony up. Art of the deal! MAGA! Shut up and let Daddy win this for you!!

  • Curly4||

    Yes, Take the gun then go through due course. Not only for guns but for every the police confiscates. Be it guns or drug money or property or what ever it is it can only become permanent only the proper due course in the courts.

  • Mauser||

    "Take the Guns first, go through due process second."

    An authoritarian sheriff or police chief could basically wipe out most firearms in the jurisdiction by applying this philosophy, it's a slippery slope.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    It's not even a slippery slope, it's a fucking cliff.

  • Sigivald||

    Surprising absolutely nobody, the President is inconsistent and seemingly says whatever thought first hits his mouthparts.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I don't know, he sounds more like he speaks from the other end of his digestive tract. :)

  • StackOfCoins||

    DT is and has always been a progressive at heart. Changing the letter from D to R doesn't change the man.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You really think he has any sort of stable political principles?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    He's a protectionist who likes media attention.

    Thus endeth "Trump's Political Philosophy 101". Bring your essays in by Monday.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He acts like a progressive as President. Rolling back government, trying to cut agencies, cut the federal budget, and trolling progressives. yeah, sounds like a progressive....NOT.

    He's trolling gun grabbers.

  • Libertymike||

    l1789 -

    Is anything I posted above in response to DiegoF off the mark?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If you mean off DiegoF's first remark...I agree with some disagree with a few parts of your reply. Let me know if I am replying to the wrong comment.

    Trump has tried to cut funding to various agencies by 75%. Congress shut him down with their budget. trump did sign it and that makes me mad. He had all the leverage in the World. Especially if he doesn't care about winning in 2020.

    Trump and the RINOs in Congress are working from different pages. Trump wants to cut some stuff and expand other parts of government to "win". Trump really thinks he can win against ISIS and the Taliban. He will probably be successful in beating them. After US troops leave, the kids that got their parents blown up and houses destroyed will form the new ISIS and Taliban.

    Trump is nearly all alone in draining the swamp. RINOs hate him. Democrats hate him. Most Reason staff hates him. Lefties hate him. I think he is taking victories where he can get them and setting up Americans to accept cuts to government and that the government is not our answer for everything. He also loves outing lefties from their holes. The left still has not figured out that trump has interns posting tweets for him. its not actually Trump every tweet.

    Is Trump a Libertarian? Fuck no. If he gets a bunch a good stuff done and leaves office with some fucked up results like keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, then we need to get another president in there to fix those Trump mistakes.

  • Libertymike||

    L1789 -

    Yes, you are responding to the right post.

    As usual, you make some good points. BTW, you are one of the most consistent, sincere members of the community here. You argue in good faith. I respect that.

    Don't have time to comment on all of your points as my wife just called - I had told her this morning that I would be home by 7 - oops.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    l literally lol'd.

  • RoninX||

    "I saved you," cried the Republicans
    "And you've bit me even, why?
    You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
    "Oh shut up, silly woman," said the Donald with a grin
    "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in"

  • DiegoF||

    That is funny I have to admit.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "I voted for you," cried the Republicans Libertarians
    "And you've bit me even, why?
    You know your bite is poisonous and now I'm going to die"
    "Oh shut up, silly woman," said the Donald political figure with a grin
    "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in"

    FTFY

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Wait, why is the authoritarian fascist supporting disarming people?"

    -progressives

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    As the sites one true progressive I really must say it's making me think.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    As the site's one true Tajik, I can't say I'm surprised.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I won't stand by here and let myself be backsassed by some Iranian minority ethnic group.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It's probably better that you sit down for this anyway.

  • GILMORE™||

    While this is probably a good point, i'm just surprised anyone has ever read "The Art of the Deal" with this level of attention-to-detail.

  • Eidde||

    I wonder if he read it himself?

  • Eidde||

  • DRM||

    Wow, Trump is saying the same things about the NRA and assault weapons now as he said in his 1999 book, The America We Deserve? Shocking. It's almost like the nonce positions he adopted for purposes of winning the Republican nomination might not be deep and eternal principles.

  • Eidde||

    I guess the thing to hope for is that his own judges will rule against him on gun control, because Obama's judges will certainly rule for him.

  • Mauser||

    Wayne Lapierre must be seething at the Dotard

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't mean to sound flippant, but I'm worried this all sounds like the boy who cried wolf to regular people.

    It's important to remember that Trump is running against the Democrats' taking the House 6+ months from now, and if they do take the House, they're almost certain to impeach him.

    He can run to the right on guns after the midterms. The immediate threat is the Democrats taking the House, and to whatever extent he can steal the Democrats' thunder by being as anti-murder spree as they are, that's likely to help him suppress marginal swing Democrats from bothering to vote.

    That being said, you guys have hit the panic button so many times now over Trump's over the top statements, don't be surprised if people treat this like they've heard you cry wolf before.

    "BUT THIS TIME THERE REALLY IS A WOLF!"

    So, can we learn something from this, please? Jesus, you guys have been crying wolf since that time Trump's browshirts supposedly swarmed on Michelle Fields and gave her a beat down.

  • Eidde||

    If it's a negotiating ploy, and he's flexible depending on the response he gets, then he will respond to pushback from the constitutionalists, so it's worth criticizing his ideas in this instance.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democrats are not taking the House nor Senate but it could be a strategy for Trump because he thinks they might be successful.

    Trump needs the economy to do well between now and that first week in November 2018. If he can pull that off, the Republicans will clean up in Congress. Congressmen are not really helping him either. Many of the RINOs might actively be ready to retire and sabotage Trump along the way. Its why the GOP has not handed Trump everything he has been asking for.

    Democrats are just a dying party and they don't even know it. This is good news for Libertarians who will pick up more voters who won't vote GOP and have abandoned the Democratic Party.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hope you're right, but I think the midterms are what's driving Trump's actions here.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans continue to do well in the state legislatures--but lose both chambers in congress.

    At that point, we'll need Trump to be further to the right on guns than he is now, and as the only Republican with any real power in Washington, he'll be well positioned to play that hand.

    He'll probably have to deal with Republican challengers for the nomination, too. Jeff Flake is already making the rounds in New Hampshire. They'll all be criticizing him from the right on guns if he doesn't move that way after the midterms.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I hope you're right, but I think the midterms are what's driving Trump's actions here.

    You're right - this seemed like a well-thought out strategy to help Republicans in the mid-term elections.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The midterm election is a referendum on Trump.

    The median seat loss in the House in the first midterm after a new president takes office is -24 for the president's party--and that's going back to 1910.

    There are only a few exceptions to the rule--one being George W. Bush's first midterm in 2002, but that was in the wake of 9/11 and before we invaded Iraq.

    The country probably won't be as unified behind Trump come November as it was behind George W. Bush in November of 2002.

  • DiegoF||

    I think you have it backwards on the Republicans' danger in the near future. They are so deep into the state legislatures right now, in a country with deepening polarization that I can't see them doing anything but losing. They hold blue-state legislatures right now, and they won't be able to help but lose those. For instance, they still hold the NY Senate (as the Democrats held the lower house even when it was a reddish state) because of the traditional remove that local political culture has had from the national. A similar arrangement (Southern state legislatures being held by the Democrats) could only last so long before that seal broke--and that was a time of far lesser ideological polarization. Washington State just flipped to the Democrats. How long will the others take?

    On the other hand, the Democrats haven't had much of a shot at taking the US Senate even at their high mark of hope. I was sure before they'd take the House, but even that hope has receded since then.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Statistics can't tell you what the next roll of the dice will be, but they can tell you that seven is the most likely number and the further you get away from seven, the less likely it is that you'll roll it.

    If anyone's interested, I'll post the numbers in the morning links tomorrow.

    Anything can happen. We're just talking probabilities.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    LOL. Jesus Christ. You Trump fanboys will believe anything.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Trump is the dreamiest boy ever.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh sure, Trump's words may not really match his actions all that often, but words are VIOLENCE man. I never knew so many antifa members were regular reason commentards.

    Wake me when he has a concrete legislative proposal or EO. Until then, I don't really give a shit.

    And I don't think Trump is being as politically shrewd as you claim, Ken. I think it's just in his nature to do his (quite random) thinking out loud.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "It's important to remember that Trump is running against the Democrats' taking the House 6+ months from now, and if they do take the House, they're almost certain to impeach him."

    And he should care why? It takes a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate to convict on articles of impeachment and remove the president from office. There are only 8 Republican Senate seats up for reelection this year. Even if the Democrats take the house and vote out articles of impeachment, there is zero chance that the Senate will convict.

    If the Democrats do it, it will only strengthen Trump politically, as happened when the Republicans tried it with Bill Clinton.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Nobody wants to be impeached.

    And he'll be relying on the votes of the people he humiliated in the election to save him.

    Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul . . .

    They might decide they'd rather have Pence.

    I suspect Trump may come out the other side even stronger. People will be mad at the Democrats for trying to impeach him--if they're unsuccessful.

    Pelosi knows this, but she also knows that if she doesn't impeach Trump, they'll probably kick her out of the Speaker's chair. She probably doesn't have a choice.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It would be complete suicide for Republicans to vote to impeach Trump.

    The people who Trump brought out to vote would then vote only to destroy their Republican betrayers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't expect him to be removed.

    Cruz, Rubio, and Paul might rather run against Trump than Pence in 2020 anyway.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Midterms are over 8 months away. Stalling isn't going to work. If gun control is that popular, the GOP Congresscreatures are risking their seats if they vote against it. So in that scenario he

    If his strategy is to protect the GOP Congress, he should be playing bad cop so that vulnerable GOP Congresscreatures can insist they would have DONE SOMETHING!!!!! if it weren't for that NRA-loving asshole Trump.

    No flipping way the Dems impeach him even if they win the House. They far prefer Trump to Pence.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Again, statistically, it's about Democrats flooding to the polls in November--and how bad that's going to be.

    Obama lost -63 seats for the Democrats in 2010.

    Bill Clinton lost -54 House seats in 1994.

    Reagan lost -26 House seats in 1982.

    The Republicans only need to lose -20 more seats to lose control.

    It isn't about Trump firing up his base.

    It's about Trump pulling the rug out from under the Democrat's base.

    They won't get much traction against Trump for being pro-murder spree if he goes anti-gun for a while.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    You fail political strategy forever.

    Trump isn't running in the midterms. The vulnerable GOP House members who would be the first ones voting on gun control bills are.

    If Rep. Joe Blow (R-Blue State) votes against the gun control that Trump now supports, the Dems will attack him for being pro-murder and rile up their base in his district (as well as sway moderates to vote D). They don't need to rile them up against Trump if they can rile them up against the guy who is actually running.

    So if you want to protect the House, Trump should be the bad guy toeing the NRA's line, while Rep. Blow votes for the gun control his district wants. When Trump vetoes it, he throws up his hands, and says he tried to protect children but eeeeeeeevil Trump vetoed it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So if you want to protect the House, Trump should be the bad guy toeing the NRA's line"

    You don't seem to understand that I'm explaining why Trump isn't toeing the NRA's line.

    Trump is taking pro-gun rights voters for granted. Pro-gun rights people think we should be doing nothing.

    Trump is selling the pro-gun rights people short. Do you not see that?

    The question is why, and the answer is because he wants to undercut the Democrats' anti-gun rights argument by co-opting it for himself. Trump has moved into the "common sense gun laws" column, which used to be occupied by people like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. He's playing for the middle.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Dude, Trump IS NOT RUNNING in 2018. His stance has no direct impact on the election.

    GOP congresspeople in swing districts/states who vote against gun control bills are the ones who are going to be vulnerable. And if they vote for said bills, the bills will land on Trump's desk long before the election.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yes, Ken. I also think he will ask for money or get money for gun control and then leave the gun grabbers hanging.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    He can run to the right on guns after the midterms.


    Sure, he's so politically apt and quite the Machiavellian and...

    LOOK, KEN! A UNICORN!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Doesn't it make more sense to assume that this about Trump trying to avoid a Democrat House and impeachment--rather than a principled stance?

    After the midterms, when he's fighting for the Republican nomination against challengers, he'll move back to the right--because politicians are generally unprincipled.

    That's one of the reasons why their power should be closely circumscribed.

    In the meantime, we're projecting principled arguments onto a president who isn't making a principled analysis.

    Our principled arguments should be directed to our friends and family. Politicians are windsocks.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    No way the Dems impeach Trump. They prefer him to Pence by a light year.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If the Democrats win the House and Nancy Pelosi doesn't impeach Trump, then she'll be replaced by someone else for Speaker who will impeach Trump.

    She's having a hard enough time hanging on to the leadership now.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/ neverpelosi-1519842572

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why would Democrats convict Trump? They might impeach him, just to watch his wig go afire, but why put Pence into position?

    The only way any Democrat should vote to convict Trump (on current evidence) would be as part of a comprehensive package that involve replacement of Pence with a consensus candidate. That seems unlikely. Democrats should be content to watch Trump and the movement conservatives brand the Republican-conservative electoral coalition with backwardness, bigotry, gullibility, and corruption for at least a generation. Democrats (and moderates, and libertarians, and even some RINOs) should be content to let the demographics -- less rural, less religious, less intolerant, less backward, less white -- and time sift this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If there's a unicorn to find in this, it's a principled politician.

    Ever seen one in real life?

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Eidde||

    ""Kim chronicles her dramatic encounters with furious, fist-pounding, homosexual men and the hate mail that flooded her office," a description of the book says, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader."

    Of course the headline takes the quote about fist-pounding homosexual men in a way that sounds dirty, and the headline writers know what they're doing.

    I don't know the specific needs of the clerk's office she's running for. Maybe there are non-SSM reasons for the local voters to elect someone else.

    But if the campaign centers on SSM, she will be in the position of actually defending what the voters supported a few short years ago - namely, an opposite-sex definition of marriage.

    If the election is a referendum on SSM and the voters decide they were wrong, or that the Supreme Court made them wrong, so be it, I suppose - let them vote for someone else.

    But if the voters decide that they were right the first time, I hope they have the guts to vote for an official who actually stood up for what her constituents believed.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Another literal lol.

  • Eidde||

    I see you belong to the John Stewart Eyeroll School of Debate. Or did you learn it from Aristotle's Rhetoric?

  • Eidde||

    Peruse these quotations I provided and you will see that courts are now citing the Obergefell decision to justify interfering with the personnel decisions of private employers.

    Just as I have been saying all along, of course.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    "Hurr, durr 4D Chess!"

    I swear to fucking Christ "I love the 2nd Amendment, but" is the proggie equivalent of "I'm not a racist, but".

  • chemjeff||

    So what dimension of chess are we up to now? Have we reached four figures yet?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The exponent has.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    It's googolplexian-D chess now.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Ludicrous speed.

    Anyway, shouldn't you be happy with Trump's heel turn, Mr Harm Reduction?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump's trolling gun grabbers.

    He will get money from them for gun control and then use it to get reelected while leaving gun control in bureaucratic hands.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Eidde||

    Love is love.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

  • LynchPin1477||

    Would it kill him to share this pictures?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    My god....

  • Irwin Mann||

    Exigent Circumstances likely applies in the case of a Nik Cruz volunteering he wants to be a school shooter. Interview him, take his weapons, take for a Brady checkup and schedule a day in court.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm learning a lot about how progressives must have reacted whenever Obama disappointed them.

  • Eidde||

    Did they have such extremely low expectations that they were relieved when he didn't prance around naked on the White House lawn while singing "Dixie"?

    Because that's pretty much my attitude - with low enough expectations, there will be times when Trump exceeds them.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I suspect people's willingness to rationalize and excuse is not proportional to level of expectation (not directed at you specifically).

  • JB Say||

    Its hard to equate destroying a guys career over 20 year old allegations with taking firearms from manifestly insane and dangerous miscreants, but Gillespie does so anyway. Its not ridiculous to advocate some due process for the former and new regulations on the latter.

  • GILMORE™||

    Thad Russell links to this story

    Thaddeus Russell @ThaddeusRussell
    1h1 hour ago

    This is his first truly fascist proposal. It's also the first that liberals applaud.
  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I bet Hitler put tariffs on Canadian lumber, though.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I agree. What are gun nuts going to do the next time some Black Kenyan socialist becomes President? I wonder what federal building they'll try to take down when that happens.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Pathetic.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    President Trump Asks Dianne Feinstein to Add 'Assault Weapons' Ban to School Safety Bill

    AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH! AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGJHHHHHHHHH!!!! AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Will she do it? I thought Trump was Hitler and Feinstein cannot deal with Hitler.

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    Wow. You'd think the Trump lovers in this thread are auditioning for Tokyo 2020 with all these gymnastics.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    WAY MOAR LIBERTARIAN THAN GARY JOHNSON!

  • SIV||

    Who isn't?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    "Take the guns first, go through due process second." — @realDonaldTrump

    God, can you imagine the hysterical scream fest that we would be seeing if Obama had said something close to this. Mm... Team Red say I must agree. You Trumpian fanboy drones are fucking priceless.

  • Brian||

    As a real libertarian, I am offended by Trump's aggression against gun owners.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    If Trump comes and takes away the guns of real Americans like you Brian how are you guys going to have a shootout with the Army the next time California's illegals elect a Black Nationalist Kenyan who hates America and loves ISIS

  • Brian||

    The same way I fuck your mom every night.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Pathetic.

  • Sevo||

    "If Trump comes and takes away the guns of real Americans like you Brian how are you guys going to have a shootout with the Army the next time California's illegals elect a Black Nationalist Kenyan who hates America and loves ISIS"

    Wonderful!
    The ldfty asshole Commie Kid throws shit all over the place hoping something will stick!
    Hint, Commie-kid: Stuff it up your ass.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Pathetic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Communists awaken in their mother's basement.

  • Sevo||

    For the benefit of those who have an interest in facts rather than shit-slinging (that leaves you out Commie-kid, go pay your mortgage), let's try to define who supports what:
    1) It's obvious that SIV would support Trump and find excuses if he committed buggery in the platz at noon, much as turd, Tony and others did for Obo when he was lying to us from the WH. SIV is joined by Mikey, John will craft a oh-so-careful defense and Ken will give us a long-form 'however' and 'wherefore' story about how it isn't really that way, Ken might be right.
    2) Old Mex, and our oh-so-tiresome lefty twits will jump up and down, hoping a comment from Trump will equate to a condemnation of all that has come before.
    3) Those of us who were not impressed by Trump from day one will continue to be pleased with what he has done to further a government more biased to a libertarian POV.
    Yep, he fucked up. He's still better than that hag, losers.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Pathetic. The usual tu quoque from a guy excusing the lies of a serial liar.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Don't make me slap you.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Another gimmick.

    Drumpf announces this
    Walks it back incoherently and instructs Congress
    McConnell and Ryan add poison pills like concealed carry across states lines

    The bills die, and Drumpf blames Democrats for not acting

  • Liberty Lover||

    If you haven't figured it out yet, Trump is a Populist. Please check which way the political wind is blowing.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is trolling the lefties.

    Trump will convince that he needs money to enact gun control. The lefties will give him millions for gun control and then Trump will never enact gun control and use that money to get reelected.

    Its "n"th D chess.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Everyone's going nuts about this comment--but I think we're seeing frustration far more than policy here.

    Every day more info comes out about yet another example of the system failing in the case of this guy. Cops at the house 70 times, neighbors, co-workers, doctors, teachers all 'seeing something and saying something', the FBI and other alphabet agencies getting heads up warnings and ignoring them.

    And no one who was supposed to DO something did anything.

    What's the point of all that get help, seek help, say something rhetoric if, at the end of the day nothing can be done because, yes he's saying he's going to kill a whole bunch of people, and yes, he's buying the guns to do it with, and yes he's violent towards himself and others on a pretty regular basis--but he hasn't yet crossed that line into an illegality that will let us actually DO something?

    And the frustration comes because this is the problem--he stayed on the side of 'did nothing illegal' right up until he snapped and killed 17 people--which is what most of these types of shooters do.

    Short of wiping the knowledge of and ability to make guns out of human memory and physical science, the only thing that will stop this is someone ready to shoot these people when they snap. An armed society. That's it.

    Nothing else works and nothing else CAN work. And we all know it--thus frustration.

  • Tony||

    Lemme get this straight. Trump proposes to grab guns and kill due process to do so.

    But at least he's orange! And stupid! And fat!

  • tlapp||

    The good news is that Trump has been getting pretty good advice on his judicial nominees who would be extremely unlikely to go along with his unconstitutional recommendations.

  • David J. Pyles||

    American citizens and We the People had better WTFU! Educate yourselves to new world disordered police state tyranny!

    David J. Pyles vs. Sheriff Mike Winters, Deputy Phil Cicero, Jackson County, Scott Clauson and City of Medford, U.S. District Court, Medford Division, 9th Circuit (CIRCUS!), case no. 12-CV-00346-CL !!!

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....e-policing

    When they came for David Pyles and his guns on 03/04/2010 to 03/08/2010 in Oregon, via a corrupt employer's effected dirty-tricks, false allegations and false police reports, as an attempt to politically railroad and set David Pyles up to be killed by SWAT Team and take his guns,...who gave a damn about 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendment rights?!!!? Not the NRA! Not the ACLU! Not the State of Oregon or federal Attorneys General! Not the FBI! Not one damn honest civil plaintiff attorney! David Pyles was the subject victim to unprecedented civil and criminal true conspiracy torts by City of Medford, Jackson County, and the State of Oregon!!! No one stood up when they came for David Pyles!

    Docket #40 in the above case is prima facia evidence of the defendants' criminal cover up of the Oregon Revised Statute 426 (false, color of law) "peace office mental health hold"! Several federal judges didn't give a damn and assisted in sweeping the whole case under the rug! No one gave a damn to help David Pyles in 2010! WTFU sheeple!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online