Will Trump succeed where Obama failed in curbing gun violence?

[TalkRadio]

President Donald Trump said Wednesday the administration is going to strengthen background checks for gun purchases and “put a strong emphasis on mental health,” as he promised students and families “we are going to get it done.”

The president, Vice President Mike Pence and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos hosted students, teachers and families affected by the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting for a "listening session" at the White House on Wednesday, which lasted close to two hours.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mass-shootings-were-going-to-get-it-done.html

 

[bellisarius]

Everyone, including the NRA, realizes the need to do something about the mentally ill obtaining, or possessing, firearms. But actually doing something about it that will pass constitutional muster is an entirely different matter. This is a situation where the 2nd amendment runs head on into the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

What degree of mental illness is the bar to strip someone of their constitutional rights? And if the government can do so in one instance, what's to bar them from doing it in another instance, such as voting?

How are these determinations to be made, by whom, and who's going to write the regulatory guidelines? The vast majority of people out there undergoing mental health counseling are NOT a danger to themselves or others. If they are to be swept up in any resulting regulations that strip them of their rights I'd see that as a huge disincentive for those people to seek help to begin with.

So while I applaud the effort, as always the devil's in the details.

 

[phrodeau]

Military recruitment has their guidelines. If you can't pass those, no gun.

 

[coachdb18]

The simple fact that the left has tried to weaponize not only the IRS, but have tried to declare everyone who does not think like them as mentally ill and subject to weapons confiscation makes the entire subject a non-starter. They went so far as to declare they want all veterans of the military to be automatically declared mentally ill. They have poisoned the well, and made the entire discussion of treating mental illness a gun debate, and toxic. It's bad enough that not even the severely mentally ill can trust a liberal, who are even more mentally ill than they are. Truth of the matter is, that they hate guns worse than they do almost anything else, and are willing to sacrifice the mentally ill in that battle. It's not fair to those who are truly mentally ill, but that's not something they're willing to admit.

 

[bellisarius]

Military recruitment has their guidelines. If you can't pass those, no gun.

Physical, mental, academic, all three?

All the gun banners have their panties in a twist over the NRA. But with regard to the proposed legislation they just might be surprised when they're blind-sided by the ACLU.

 

[Comshaw]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mass-shootings-were-going-to-get-it-done.html

Everyone, including the NRA, realizes the need to do something about the mentally ill obtaining, or possessing, firearms. But actually doing something about it that will pass constitutional muster is an entirely different matter. This is a situation where the 2nd amendment runs head on into the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

What degree of mental illness is the bar to strip someone of their constitutional rights? And if the government can do so in one instance, what's to bar them from doing it in another instance, such as voting?

How are these determinations to be made, by whom, and who's going to write the regulatory guidelines? The vast majority of people out there undergoing mental health counseling are NOT a danger to themselves or others. If they are to be swept up in any resulting regulations that strip them of their rights I'd see that as a huge disincentive for those people to seek help to begin with.

So while I applaud the effort, as always the devil's in the details.

What do you do? Well up here we've already started to address that. First off you require back ground checks for ALL firearms transfers including private sales. The way that it has been was like building a corral, then leaving the gate open and expecting the herd to stay inside. It ain't gunna happen. If you want to eliminate guns being obtained by those who shouldn't have them, you have to close the gate.

Secondly we instituted what is called an extreme risk protection order. Any family member or law enforcement agent can petition a judge to TEMPORARILY ban a person from possessing firearms until that person has voluntarily taken steps to eliminate the reason for the order.

Is this perfect? Hell no, but it does close some of those loop holds that lead to others being killed by unstable or angry people with guns while trying to uphold the rights of gun owners.

In case any of you are interested the links to the text of the RCW's are below.



RCW 9.41.113
Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113


Chapter 7.94 RCW
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT


http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94



Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

What do you do? Well up here we've already started to address that. First off you require back ground checks for ALL firearms transfers including private sales. The way that it has been was like building a corral, then leaving the gate open and expecting the herd to stay inside. It ain't gunna happen. If you want to eliminate guns being obtained by those who shouldn't have them, you have to close the gate.

Secondly we instituted what is called an extreme risk protection order. Any family member or law enforcement agent can petition a judge to TEMPORARILY ban a person from possessing firearms until that person has voluntarily taken steps to eliminate the reason for the order.

Is this perfect? Hell no, but it does close some of those loop holds that lead to others being killed by unstable or angry people with guns while trying to uphold the rights of gun owners.

In case any of you are interested the links to the text of the RCW's are below.



RCW 9.41.113
Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113


Chapter 7.94 RCW
EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT


http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94



Comshaw

Though you didn't mention it, there is NO "Gunshow Loophole". I bring that up because that's the "excuse" that most anti-gun" people use to support Universal Background Checks (UBC). As far as I'm aware, all guns sales require a background check already, no adding another law to emulate what already exists is a ridiculous "solution" because it solves nothing.

To prove it solves nothing, the Fla shooter PASSED his background checks. The failure wasn't in the requiring of the check, it was a failure by the PEOPLE who didn't do their job. And then the police and other agencies who went to the kids house those 39 bazillion times didn't do THEIR job either. So UBC won't solve anything.

Your "Extreme Risk TRO" is just as flawed as California's. It's flawed because it assumes that anyone who has ANY complaint from certain individuals is automatically a risk and therefore loses his Constitutional Rights BEFORE ADJUDICATION. That's not our system under our laws or Constitution.

Until people acknowledge that CRIMINALS don't care about laws, they will not be able to prevent crime. Making more criminals out of the law abiding is not the answer to anything. Fix the problem. Stop making citizens the scapegoat for the failures of Government to enforce and obey the law.

 

[OldJourno]

Everyone, including the NRA, realizes the need to do something about the mentally ill obtaining, or possessing, firearms. But actually doing something about it that will pass constitutional muster is an entirely different matter. This is a situation where the 2nd amendment runs head on into the 4th, 5th, and 6th.

What degree of mental illness is the bar to strip someone of their constitutional rights? And if the government can do so in one instance, what's to bar them from doing it in another instance, such as voting?

How are these determinations to be made, by whom, and who's going to write the regulatory guidelines? The vast majority of people out there undergoing mental health counseling are NOT a danger to themselves or others. If they are to be swept up in any resulting regulations that strip them of their rights I'd see that as a huge disincentive for those people to seek help to begin with.

So while I applaud the effort, as always the devil's in the details.

Arm the teachers and all those constitutional concerns just melt away.

 

[Comshaw]

Though you didn't mention it, there is NO "Gunshow Loophole". I bring that up because that's the "excuse" that most anti-gun" people use to support Universal Background Checks (UBC). As far as I'm aware, all guns sales require a background check already, no adding another law to emulate what already exists is a ridiculous "solution" because it solves nothing.

To prove it solves nothing, the Fla shooter PASSED his background checks. The failure wasn't in the requiring of the check, it was a failure by the PEOPLE who didn't do their job. And then the police and other agencies who went to the kids house those 39 bazillion times didn't do THEIR job either. So UBC won't solve anything.

Your "Extreme Risk TRO" is just as flawed as California's. It's flawed because it assumes that anyone who has ANY complaint from certain individuals is automatically a risk and therefore loses his Constitutional Rights BEFORE ADJUDICATION. That's not our system under our laws or Constitution.

Until people acknowledge that CRIMINALS don't care about laws, they will not be able to prevent crime. Making more criminals out of the law abiding is not the answer to anything. Fix the problem. Stop making citizens the scapegoat for the failures of Government to enforce and obey the law.

Can you read? Did I say anything about gun shows? Please reread what I posted and try to understand what was said. The loop hole that was closed was PRIVATE SALES! Before we passed this law, and in any state that goes by the federal law, the private sale of a firearm between two people is NOT subject to back ground checks. If you think I'm mistaken then please post a link to the text of that federal regulation. If you can't then I and everyone else who reads this will have to concur that I'm right.

Your rant was a good try at deflection but it doesn't work. READ THE LINK then get back to me.

As far as the RCW on the ERPO, you didn't read that text either did you? It goes before a judge and isn't issued unless the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of doing so. So it is adjudicated or don't you understand the definition of that word?

I'm sure you'd love to keep things a spun up and confused so nothing gets done but for some of us we need to make progress on stopping the killing of our kids. As I said it ain't perfect, but it's a start, and the best attempt I've seen at protecting everyone's rights. Besides it's more then's been done by our reps in Washington in a very long time.

Comshaw

 

[oggbashan]

Will Trump succeed?

It is more likely that a Republican President could get changes about guns approved than a Democrat. Any proposals are likely to be more reasonable and nuanced than anything proposed by the Democrat Party.

Whether any proposals would actually stop school shootings?

That's another question.

 

[HisArpy]

Can you read? Did I say anything about gun shows? Please reread what I posted and try to understand what was said. The loop hole that was closed was PRIVATE SALES! Before we passed this law, and in any state that goes by the federal law, the private sale of a firearm between two people is NOT subject to back ground checks. If you think I'm mistaken then please post a link to the text of that federal regulation. If you can't then I and everyone else who reads this will have to concur that I'm right.

Your rant was a good try at deflection but it doesn't work. READ THE LINK then get back to me.

As far as the RCW on the ERPO, you didn't read that text either did you? It goes before a judge and isn't issued unless the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of doing so. So it is adjudicated or don't you understand the definition of that word?

I'm sure you'd love to keep things a spun up and confused so nothing gets done but for some of us we need to make progress on stopping the killing of our kids. As I said it ain't perfect, but it's a start, and the best attempt I've seen at protecting everyone's rights. Besides it's more then's been done by our reps in Washington in a very long time.

Comshaw

God, you're a fucking MORON, you know that? I SPECIFICALLY SAID that you didn't bring it up, but that it was important part of the reasoning behind UBC. Yet there you go ranting on how you "didn't say it".

OMG, the cops get an anon tip from some disgruntled neighbor, show up, confiscate the guns, give the poor slob a "ticket" with a court date in 2 weeks where he has to go before a judge and prove his innocence, and ONLY THEN does he get to exercise his Rights again. and then only AFTER paying the "fee" to get his own property back. Innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't mean anything in your world, does it.

Fucking idiot. Go get a fucking clue first, THEN stfu anyway. No one needs your brainless crap any more than they need hemorrhoids.

 

[Comshaw]

Will Trump succeed?

It is more likely that a Republican President could get changes about guns approved than a Democrat. Any proposals are likely to be more reasonable and nuanced than anything proposed by the Democrat Party.

Whether any proposals would actually stop school shootings?

That's another question.

The problem is most folks believe there is a single panacea that will magically stop the killing, when in reality it's like any other complicated issue, there are many things and a multitude of causes that need to be addressed before it will be solved. But no one wants to give an inch. both sides refuse to give up any thing on their side to help cure the problem. Until that happens, or one side or the other garners an overriding majority of voters, you're going to see a boot pissing contest.


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

God, you're a fucking MORON, you know that? I SPECIFICALLY SAID that you didn't bring it up, but that it was important part of the reasoning behind UBC. Yet there you go ranting on how you "didn't say it".

OMG, the cops get an anon tip from some disgruntled neighbor, show up, confiscate the guns, give the poor slob a "ticket" with a court date in 2 weeks where he has to go before a judge and prove his innocence, and ONLY THEN does he get to exercise his Rights again. and then only AFTER paying the "fee" to get his own property back. Innocent until proven guilty apparently doesn't mean anything in your world, does it.

Fucking idiot. Go get a fucking clue first, THEN stfu anyway. No one needs your brainless crap any more than they need hemorrhoids.

Talk about idiots. I didn't say it YET you bring it up as a discussion point because

"Though you didn't mention it, there is NO "Gunshow Loophole". I bring that up because that's the "excuse" that most anti-gun" people use to support Universal Background Checks (UBC). As far as I'm aware, all guns sales require a background check already, no adding another law to emulate what already exists is a ridiculous "solution" because it solves nothing."

Why is that? Maybe deflection at it's finest? And as I've already asked, please show me the federal regulation that requires background checks on private sales.

As for your second part on the ERPO, again please read the law and EDUCATE yourself before you spout what you think it says and make yourself look more of a dumb ass then you already have.

Edited to add: The reason I say there is no federal regulation for back ground checks on private sales is because I get it from a very reliable source. My son is a police officer AND has an FFL to sell firearms. Because of his vocation and avocation He is quite familiar with Federal regulations governing the sales and transfer of firearms. If you think you know better, please feel free to prove me wrong. If you can't or won't then please educate yourself OR stay out of an adult conversation you know little to nothing about.




Comshaw

 

[WoundedKnee]

The simple fact that the left has tried to weaponize not only the IRS, but have tried to declare everyone who does not think like them as mentally ill and subject to weapons confiscation makes the entire subject a non-starter. They went so far as to declare they want all veterans of the military to be automatically declared mentally ill. They have poisoned the well, and made the entire discussion of treating mental illness a gun debate, and toxic. It's bad enough that not even the severely mentally ill can trust a liberal, who are even more mentally ill than they are. Truth of the matter is, that they hate guns worse than they do almost anything else, and are willing to sacrifice the mentally ill in that battle. It's not fair to those who are truly mentally ill, but that's not something they're willing to admit.

lol - good comedy has an element of truth.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Will Trump succeed?

It is more likely that a Republican President could get changes about guns approved than a Democrat. Any proposals are likely to be more reasonable and nuanced than anything proposed by the Democrat Party.

Whether any proposals would actually stop school shootings?

That's another question.

Dirty Little Secret
Just as the hard Progressive Left is willing to use the DACA children as a political issue going into the elections, rather than fix the problems with school security, they might even be willing to accept a certain number of deaths if they can keep the issue of increased gun regulation/banishment and its emotive power alive. When the ends justifies the means, it takes a certain amount of cynicism.

 

[chillywilly2]

Military recruitment has their guidelines. If you can't pass those, no gun.

So no guns for LGBTQ's...do you hear what you're saying there

 

[DeadManTyping]

Will Trump succeed in curbing gun violence where Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Harrison, Arthur, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Johnson, Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Taylor, Polk, Tyler, Harrison, Van Buren, Jackson, Adams, Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington failed...?

There has been unacceptable gun violence in this country since the birth of this country, and even long before the birth of this country. One president, particularly this president, is not going to solve gun violence in the United States of America.

Gun violence in this country is not going to be under control unless all of the guns are under control. And that's not going to happen so long as politicians are taking money from the gun lobbies and gun rights activists.

If Americans want this carnage to be lessened, and I'm not even talking eliminated because I don't feel that that will ever happen, if they just want to lessen this Carnage they have to ignore every other issue that politicians talk about and ask only one question, "Will you support massive and major gun control legislation and vote for it." And if the politician in question says no, you must vote that politician out of office. That's the only way that this country will ever have true gun control. Forget abortion, forget tax reform, forget border walls, forget everything other then the gun control question for just one or two election cycles, and Americans can solve the gun control problem.

And if you think that I am some gun control bible thumper who wants to see all of the weapons taken away from law-abiding citizens, you're wrong. I have a revolver, semi-auto pistols, ashotgun, a "squirrel" rifle, and deer rifles; and I am currently shopping for an assault style rifle, possibly a Ruger Mini-14, though I am as of yet undecided.

 

[WoundedKnee]

No such fucking thing as an assault rifle.

 

[chillywilly2]

No such fucking thing as an assault rifle.

If you're squirrel hunting its a squirrel gun
if you're deer hunting its a deer rifle

if you're assaulting school kids...well....guess what

 

[ChinoMoreno]

Arm the teachers and all those constitutional concerns just melt away.

man most teachers dont even know whos talking in class and you want to give them guns ok lol

 

[coachdb18]

If you're squirrel hunting its a squirrel gun
if you're deer hunting its a deer rifle

if you're assaulting school kids...well....guess what

It's a kid rifle?
You're weird as fuck!

 

[Comshaw]

The simple fact that the left has tried to weaponize not only the IRS, but have tried to declare everyone who does not think like them as mentally ill and subject to weapons confiscation makes the entire subject a non-starter. They went so far as to declare they want all veterans of the military to be automatically declared mentally ill. They have poisoned the well, and made the entire discussion of treating mental illness a gun debate, and toxic. It's bad enough that not even the severely mentally ill can trust a liberal, who are even more mentally ill than they are. Truth of the matter is, that they hate guns worse than they do almost anything else, and are willing to sacrifice the mentally ill in that battle. It's not fair to those who are truly mentally ill, but that's not something they're willing to admit.

And this ladies and gentlemen is exactly why it's almost impossible to get anything done about the killing. Rather then deal in facts and hard data, those who have a persecution complex insist any suggestion from the other side is a conspiracy, that nothing said is honest and that they and those who agree with them have the only lock on the truth. How the hell do you deal with those who manufacture facts from thin air, use emotional rhetoric in place of rational argument and then insist it's all true? It's much like arguing with someone who is religious. "I don't need facts and empirical evidence. I already know it's true because I believe it is."

Comshaw

 

[lovecraft68]

If he chooses to. He's proven he can bully the rest of the GOP into voting his way.

Even though he's getting zero credit for it-no surprise-trying to ban the bump kit is a step in the right direction.

I'd love to see him come up with something good not just because it would make things safer, but to see the Dems have to vote for it(or look like hypocrites) and then acknowledge he did something they approve of.

Its sad to say, but I think the average dem would rather him do nothing because its more important to be able to keep blaming him than it is to save lives they couldn't care less about at the end of the day.

 

[BobBalouski]

And this ladies and gentlemen is exactly why it's almost impossible to get anything done about the killing. Rather then deal in facts and hard data, those who have a persecution complex insist any suggestion from the other side is a conspiracy, that nothing said is honest and that they and those who agree with them have the only lock on the truth. How the hell do you deal with those who manufacture facts from thin air, use emotional rhetoric in place of rational argument and then insist it's all true? It's much like arguing with someone who is religious. "I don't need facts and empirical evidence. I already know it's true because I believe it is."

Comshaw

You keep blowing that critiquing crap out of your socialist/progressive ass, but I've don't recall you even offering 1 practical solution re "get anything done about the killing" - why is that, wannabe? And practical is the key word, blowhard; why don't you dazzle us?

 

[Comshaw]

I'm still waiting for you to produce the federal reg on private sales of firearms. As smart as you are it shouldn't take you long to find it now should it? Come on, man up and get 'er done. Show me up as an asshole that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Comshaw

Though you didn't mention it, there is NO "Gunshow Loophole". I bring that up because that's the "excuse" that most anti-gun" people use to support Universal Background Checks (UBC). As far as I'm aware, all guns sales require a background check already, no adding another law to emulate what already exists is a ridiculous "solution" because it solves nothing.

To prove it solves nothing, the Fla shooter PASSED his background checks. The failure wasn't in the requiring of the check, it was a failure by the PEOPLE who didn't do their job. And then the police and other agencies who went to the kids house those 39 bazillion times didn't do THEIR job either. So UBC won't solve anything.

Your "Extreme Risk TRO" is just as flawed as California's. It's flawed because it assumes that anyone who has ANY complaint from certain individuals is automatically a risk and therefore loses his Constitutional Rights BEFORE ADJUDICATION. That's not our system under our laws or Constitution.

Until people acknowledge that CRIMINALS don't care about laws, they will not be able to prevent crime. Making more criminals out of the law abiding is not the answer to anything. Fix the problem. Stop making citizens the scapegoat for the failures of Government to enforce and obey the law.