Trump Says He Supports 'Intelligent' Background Checks

Oh, so because "the public" is "uneasy", that means it's okay for Trump to entertain violations of the second amendment that won't do anything to solve the problem. Who can argue with that logic?

And why the hell would I have confidence in Trump? He's a damn liar and a coward.

Instead of standing up for the second amendment and rebutting the terrible arguments being put forward by advocates of gun control, Trump is breathing life into their gun control agenda.

Trump is a loser and a wimp. He lied when he said would protect the second amendment.

 

So you want to disarm Americans and leave them at the mercy of the state and criminal elements.

At least you're honest.

Not sure how you think your agenda will be accomplished, given the fact that there are more than 300 million firearms in private circulation throughout the country.

 

Incremental infringements of the second amendment leading to total prohibitions and confiscation has always been the strategy of the gun control movement. But instead of resisting that strategy, Trump is preparing to hand them a victory.

 

Exploiting the deaths of innocent people so you can push your authoritarian political agenda. Sickening.

 

"Just surrender and hope they don't enforce the laws."
--Thomas Jefferson (no, not really)

 

There is nothing fine or respectable about stripping the entire country of an essential legal right.

 

It's more gun control. That's the only "detail" I'm interested in.

 

Gun control laws only disarm the people and allow criminals and savage maniacs to rule the streets.
The anarchy of America's DP ruled urban hell holes exposes the collapse of an advanced civilization's great cities.

 

There is nothing essential about having semi-auto guns in the home and being abused constantly by criminals.

 

This is a mantra and a myth.

 

The only ones abusing the constitution are those who argue that modern rifles are not covered under the definition of arms per the second amendment.

Computers didn't exist either. I guess that means "blogging" isn't protected by the first amendment.

The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the security of a FREE state. And in order for that to happen, the people must be armed. You would see them reduced to a state of serfdom.

 

They are essential for purposes of defense.

The probability of becoming the victim of a gun homicide in the USA is 0.003%. The average American is three times more likely to die from accidentally falling down than they are from a gun homicide. You and other gun control advocates are intentionally and maliciously exaggerating the problem because you want to disarm the population and leave them powerless to resist your authoritarian political ideology.

 

No country on earth can regulate criminals access to guns. Governments can disarm its own citizens so long as they obey the law.

6 years after the UK imposed its absurd gun ban criminals were arming themselves with every kind of firearm.
Of course, crime, including gun crime, soared and your police have to be protected by roving teams with submachine guns - civilization in full retreat.


"Philip Etienne - a former undercover policeman who has
bought dozens of guns during his career with the Met, as
detailed in his book, The Infiltrators - believes the problem
is growing rapidly because criminals increasingly feel
pressurised into carrying firearms.

There are so many guns in circulation that, to the people
selling them, they are just another commodity, just a way
of making money. That's the business they're in and it
wouldn't occur to them to do anything else. When I was in
the police force, we concentrated on taking them out of
circulation rather than making arrests. If we heard
someone had guns for sale we would just go and buy as
many of them as we could. But today there are so many
out there, I don't think we could keep up.' Unfortunately,
Etienne looks to be right."
THIS IS LONDON, By Danny Brown, 2/28/02.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynam...?in_review_id=509803&in_review_text_id=473066

 

You're not trying to serve the American people, you're trying to subjugate them.

 

Raise taxes, throw money at the problem, empower government.

There's a real original and imaginative non-solution to the problem.

How about we start examining the root causes of this violent criminality instead of fecklessly trying to control the symptoms?

How about we answer the question of why our society produces these psychotic freaks in the first place?

Of course, that would require Americans to look past the surface and engage in some much needed introspection about how sick this society has become in the face of unrelenting materialism, consumerism, and statism.

 

British people are living in an Orwellian society. Their government treats them like slaves and children. No doubt that is what you want for Americans.

 

I'm against him in the Republicans on this one and the red flag laws.

It's just an inch for gun control

 

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of gun crime that happens in America occurs inside cities controlled by Democrats like you.

What this country really needs is Democrat control.

 

If you like to pretend that the obvious firearm permissiveness in the US has had no impact upon the astronomical level of firearm fatalities in the US compared to all other advanced nations, that is what you will pretend.

 

The only reason the USA as a whole has a higher gun crime rate than countries like Canada or Australia is because Democrats have destroyed America's major cities, turning them into impoverished and crime-ridden cesspools. The suburban community I've lived in my entire life has a gun crime rate that is virtually ZERO. Yet you drive down the road thirty minutes into the city of Chicago and suddenly the gun crime rate is astronomical. It's clear what the real problem here is, and that is the utter incompetence and malfeasance of Democratic politicians across America's dysfunctional cities.

 

Bravo.

Might I suggest one place where we can start looking at the underlying problems producing the symptom of gun violence?

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.

-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan , 1965

 

The evidence flatly contradicts your narrative.


As gun ownership has increased, violent crimes have gone DOWN, not up.

But gun control advocates simply do not care about facts, evidence, or truth.

They just want to be in total control of society with no obstacles or resistance. Hence their desire to see the population disarmed.

 

There is no doubt that the atomizing effect of statism and materialism are leading to familial, communal, and spiritual death among a significant percentage of the population.

 

Democrats are also largely responsible for creating armies of socially isolated, heavily medicated males who end up snapping and going on rampages.

But like they always do, Democrats try to turn their weakness into a strength, by using the problem they created as an excuse to further erode an essential right.

 

I live in an area where gun ownership is ubiquitous but gun violence is non-existent.

If your theory was worth the bandwidth it was posted on we would have an astronomical level of firearm fatalities in our community but we don't.