President Trump Rejects Stronger Background Checks

[SharpDog]

Here is the actual video:

https://www.reuters.com/video/2019/09/01/trump-calls-odessa-shooting-tragic?videoId=594848985

Here is the quoted article:

President Trump: Stronger Background Checks Would Not Stop Attacks:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/01/president-trump-stronger-background-checks-would-not-stop-attacks/

 

[Pat Riot]

The problem that I see with so-called “stronger background checks” is the checks aren’t really stronger. They just generate revenue and the guns aren’t turned over in a reasonable amount of time. A ten day wait for a first gun purchase is reasonable for a background check. For subsequent guns it is just a form of government control, nothing more.

 

[Orion8472]

You should start worrying, though. Because if even the background checks don't stop things like this,....they'll begin to wonder if there should be something even more controlling to work towards,.....and the "background checks" thing will become an argument against the gun side.

 

[AlexanderA]

Trump wavers from one day to the next, depending on who he talks to last.

UBC's are coming, sooner or later. The question is, what kind of UBC's. Are we going to channel everything through FFL's, with transfer fees and Form 4473's? Or is there an alternative?

I'd like to see a carve-out for states like Virginia, that already have a voluntary check system in place. (State Police are mandated to have a table at each Virginia gun show, where people can get a voluntary check of their buyer. No record of the gun is kept.) If a buyer and seller take advantage of this system, a federal UBC should exempt them from any further check.

 

[Palolosj]

Sadly the future of gun ownership rests with those that do crazy things using guns. Like any politician Trump will go with the flow. He just throws ideas into the winds to see in which direction the winds of majority blow.
It's only matter of time before extra restrictions for gun ownership are implemented.

 

[DeepSouth]

When it comes to guns, the man is like play-doh.
The question is whose hand is he in today?

 

[Deanimator]

UBC's are coming, sooner or later.

They certainly are if gun owners roll over and show their bellies.

Then it'll be, "An assault weapon ban is coming, sooner or later."

Then it'll be, "A handgun ban is coming sooner or later."

Then it'll be...

 

[Palolosj]

When it comes to guns, the man is like play-doh.
The question is whose hand is he in today?

I don't pay any attention to what he says. I only listen to local news for 15 to 20 minutes per day that way I don't have to listen to anything pertaining to Trump.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I don't pay any attention to what he says. I only listen to local news for 15 to 20 minutes per day that way I don't have to listen to anything pertaining to Trump.

Yep, a lot of my Liberal friends say the same thing. I will agree with Our President, the thing is, guns are just a wedge issue for the Democrats. They know that guns in the hands of criminals or the insane is not about gun control or background checks. For Gosh sake, just look at numbers of the people that do the most of the shooting across America. They are thugs that laugh at gun control Go ahead, I challenge you! Funny thing is, you can bet your last dime they are not Republican by anywhere close to the majority.
I understand, Many want Obama back. Or maybe Hillary as opposed to Trump. How could that be helping us who are pro 2nd Amendment? Thank God we have a President that is on our side. Stand with him or get out of the way.

 

[AlexanderA]

Thank God we have a President that is on our side. Stand with him or get out of the way.

I believe that the election of Trump, in the long run, will prove detrimental to gun rights. The reason is that the reaction to him (on issues other than guns) will usher in a Democratic president and congress that will go full-bore against guns. This would not happen if we had a more mainstream Republican. But we will see. The 2020 election will either be close, or it will be a blowout. My crystal ball is broken.

 

[CapnMac]

A ten day wait for a first gun purchase is reasonable for a background check.

Which may or may not even occur in a PoC stat, and NICS is not a "background check." NICS is a blacklist of known prohibited persons, and they use a structured query to taest if a name is on the list. There's a reason it can be "instant."

Historically, delayed purchases have never deterred crime or mayhem. Criminals do not obey such limits (and cannot be forced to obey them, either). Delays in purchases are nothing more than the State reinforcing that the citizens must be subservient to its diktats.

Not adding to the overloaded NICS system is a sensible thing. They made all the Point of Contact States stop using NICS to take the load off the personnel now employed.

And, NICS has its flaws, there are a number of States (±14 IIRC) which have not sent any disqualifying information to NICS. There are a number of States which have sent felony convictions, but not one domestic violence or mental health DQ. There's not a good way to audit NICS (nor staff to do so); there is speculation that the list is only 49-72% complete. Where are the cries that the State do their job?

 

[Deanimator]

I believe that the election of Trump, in the long run, will prove detrimental to gun rights. The reason is that the reaction to him (on issues other than guns) will usher in a Democratic president and congress that will go full-bore against guns. This would not happen if we had a more mainstream Republican. But we will see. The 2020 election will either be close, or it will be a blowout. My crystal ball is broken.

That's an... "interesting" version of reality.

There is lockstep unanimity in the candidates on racially invidious gun controls. That would be the same whether the Republicans ran Donald Trump or the corpse of Donald O'Connor. Anything else is delusion.

They want to take ALL guns away from Americans whom they do not control. That is an immutable goal. It has been for a VERY long time.

You can't impose Holodomor v2.0 on people who can resist with force.

 

[GEM]

In an alternate universe, President Sanders said that since the Obama administration had no problem with bump stocks, he sees no reason to ban them, despite Las Vegas.

Donald Trump, the candidate who lost the election by 77000 votes in 3 states, tweeted that he would have banned them. This was supporters by Hannity and the cast of Fox and Friends.

My point - don’t Trust him.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

My point - don’t Trust him.

Don't trust "them" ...

 

[Jeb Stuart]

In an alternate universe, President Sanders said that since the Obama administration had no problem with bump stocks, he sees no reason to ban them, despite Las Vegas.

Donald Trump, the candidate who lost the election by 77000 votes in 3 states, tweeted that he would have banned them. This was supporters by Hannity and the cast of Fox and Friends.

My point - don’t Trust him.

Sorry, but will trust him over the last President we had by "Huge" margins. And not just on gun issues. But the security of our Country as well. No, I am not a Obama fan to say the least. and there is a reason why Obama sold the most guns. Trying to paint Trump as anti gun is IMO ridiculous. It is his base. Sometimes I feel as if I am watching CNN here. Some just looking for any way to bash him. You have your right to your opinion, and I respect that. But strongly disagree. And by the way, Trump won the election. I have no idea why you are pointing out three states.

 

[Walkalong]

That's an... "interesting" version of reality.

Indeed, but he has stood fast on it for some time.

 

[AlexanderA]

And, NICS has its flaws, there are a number of States (±14 IIRC) which have not sent any disqualifying information to NICS. There are a number of States which have sent felony convictions, but not one domestic violence or mental health DQ. There's not a good way to audit NICS (nor staff to do so); there is speculation that the list is only 49-72% complete.

And this is why disqualified people "test" the system by attempting to buy guns. Such an attempt is not as stupid as it appears at first glance.

 

[AlexanderA]

There is lockstep unanimity in the candidates on racially invidious gun controls. That would be the same whether the Republicans ran Donald Trump or the corpse of Donald O'Connor. Anything else is delusion.

They want to take ALL guns away from Americans whom they do not control. That is an immutable goal. It has been for a VERY long time.

My point doesn't have to do with the Democrats. My point is that the Republicans would have a better chance of winning if they were running someone other than Donald Trump. This is basically a center-right country, and the Democrats, IMO, have veered too far to the left. But "Trump derangement syndrome" is very real, and a lot of people in the middle are going to vote for the Democrats just to get rid of Trump. I could be wrong. I'm not going to make any predictions after the experience of 2016. I just have the gut feeling that Trump is going to lose by historic proportions.

 

[Conelrad]

Another deterrent to mass shootings would be to arrest & charge the immediate family of the shooter as well.

They had the best barometer on the crazy level, and need to be accountable as well.

Once that becomes common knowledge, and knowing what would happen to them, they wouldn't want go down for Dorko's (Dorka's too) actions.

The relatives should pull them back from the brink, secure the guns, maybe even have them committed ahead of time.

Conelrad

 

[taliv]

In an alternate universe, President Sanders said that since the Obama administration had no problem with bump stocks, he sees no reason to ban them, despite Las Vegas.

Donald Trump, the candidate who lost the election by 77000 votes in 3 states, tweeted that he would have banned them. This was supporters by Hannity and the cast of Fox and Friends.

My point - don’t Trust him.

yep, not sure which universe that is, but definitely not applicable to this one

 

[AlexanderA]

Another deterrent to mass shootings would be to arrest & charge the immediate family of the shooter as well.

Small problem. We don't have "taint of blood" in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Nor in any other modern country, for that matter. The last ones to try this were the Nazis in WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft

 

[Deanimator]

Small problem. We don't have "taint of blood" in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Nor in any other modern country, for that matter. The last ones to try this were the Nazis in WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft

Apparently you've never heard of a single Marxist country from the Soviet Union in 1917 to North Korea this very moment.

Google the term "class enemy".

Your perception of reality is distorted by your failure to study history.

Of course were you to actually study history, you would drop the fantasy of a "deal" with the proponents of racially invidious gun controls like it were a burning porcupine.

 

[Elkins45]

This entire thread is one big dose of deja vü.

 

[AlexanderA]

Apparently you've never heard of a single Marxist country from the Soviet Union in 1917 to North Korea this very moment.

Not countries we would want to emulate, and not "modern countries" in my view.

Your perception of reality is distorted by your failure to study history.

I have an Honors degree in history (Univ. of Texas 1966) among other things. My father in fact was a history professor. I was steeped in history from the time I was small kid.

 

[Walkalong]

Trump was the best choice for pro gun voters last time out, and will be again this next election.

Is he perfect on guns? Far from it, but no one is. Does that mean we should instead elect an avowed anti who would take them all if they could? Elect an avowed anti and hold our breath hoping they cannot get enough anti votes to take our guns this time? Well, some posters here will try that approach because they hate Trump, or hate Republicans, or simply are more Liberal minded than Trump and can't stand to vote for him, gun rights or not.