Yes, but he had an upside which would benefit him in that offer. There is no obvious upside for him in this offer unless you have more information than I. Please let us know if you do.
I just listened to it and he never specifically limited it to that situation. I think the context was if the individual is deemed to be a threat, then take the guns and let the courts sort it out.
The legislation has not been written at this point, but that statement will not inspire confidence in many patriots. Let me run a scenario by you. 10 years from now if some doofus gets into office and decides that patriots are a threat. They decide to come and confiscate your weapons. To get them back, you have to hire an attorney to represent you and take the government to court which could easily cost you 6 figures or more. Are you okay with that? Also who decides you are a threat? Cops? Judge? Neighbor? Ex from a relationship?
There was no mention of terroristic threat by the Potus during the conversation. The only mention I heard was to be deemed a "threat". Now who decides if you are a threat? What is the definition? If an administration deems patriots to be a threat to national security (as they have already tried to do historically) then they could feasibly come to the door and confiscate them and make you come to court to prove you are not a threat.
Like I said, the legislation is not written yet but there is nothing about the words spoken that I find to be comforting or make me feel safer. Potus took an oath to defend the constitution, not negotiate it. If they desire to change it, then call for a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures and see how far that goes. If they do that then perhaps we can implement some term limits for the riff raff that currently runs this country into the ground.
Exactly. Whether you have the money or not, do you wish to pay 6 figures to an attorney to retrieve 3 or 4 figures worth of weapons? Most either cant or will not.
It is an emotional response to an issue that does not solve the issue to begin with. How many mass shooters in history have provided a warning in advance of their action? If an ex claims you threatened them with a weapon and are mentally unstable, do the cops then have the proper evidence to come and remove your weapons and force you to prove you are not? Who decides if you are a threat or not? Cops? Judge? Doctor?
Sure they do. Not all at one time but they can slowly and surely take them all one at a time. If you resist, they have all of the evidence they require to remove the right permanently.
But with the Daca negotiations, he would have ended chain migration and the visa lottery system. There is nothing that is a positive in this discussion so far.
Are we to trust the President or not? I know what I heard him say with his own words.
My point is that I do not think Trump would ever try to push this to take the second away. My concern is that the president he is setting will allow a future President to expand the rule and do exactly that. the optics is that he is willing to negotiate a limit on the second amendment which could possibly be expanded in the future to disarm the citizens. That can not be allowed. There is no plus side to this negotiation unless it is to simply level blame which is doing no one any good at this time since the mood is so emotional.
This does not address the root of the problem, will not make children safer, will not make society safer, and should not be entertained.
That is my point. I heard him and I trust that he is well intentioned and is not trying to take away the second amendment rights. I do not trust that the legislation will not be expanded and used inappropriately by his successors though once it is on the books.
And yet there is still no definitive answer. Meanwhile Flotus is in his ear whispering we have to do something for the children, Ivanca is likely doing the same, but we are to trust that he has some sort of plan here to start negotiating the second amendment.
Someone can prove me wrong and time will tell. I just simply have no way of getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about this entire situation.
If they do pass this, and then a second situation comes directly after, then where does the situation take us? You can just here the public and the media drum up that they have to pass even more legislation to protect the children. Once you open the door, how do you close it again?
No
Perhaps you should discuss that with the President since that was exactly what his words were stating he was willing to do. Also Obummer took the same oath and I defy you to give one example of one instance where he upheld or defended the Constitution.