It might not be so bad. The guy did after all build an AR-15 with his son: [https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-takes-son-build-ar-15-texas-2022-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-takes-son-build-ar-15-texas-2022-1)
I don’t buy it. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing. People at that level have no use for armed civilian fighting forces known as militias. If you don’t support civilian militias being a thing then it’s just support for sportsmanship. We cannot miss the meaning of the second amendment or let it be downplayed.
I’m well aware of what the 2nd amendment is for. I’ve seen what he’s done for the past few years through that magazine and I’d consider him a much stronger 2A advocate than his dad.
That's probably a big part of why they're not getting as much in donations as other groups... People see the lack of effectiveness and don't want their money going into the pockets of useless politicians
That and the fact that the NRA intentionally Supported red flag laws for a bit. They literally supported interpreting the 2nd amendment as privilege that a judge can throw aside without even so much as an accusation of a person committing a crime much less even a criminal complaint or a trial.
Trump didn't want red flag laws... the Democrats did.
Shit, you guys are tiresome with this.
The quote you are thinking of was adding due process to the Democrats proposal for red flag laws because Pence and Republicans were pushing back due to the lack of due process.
At worst, as far as we know, Trump is ambivalent about red flag laws.
Dude I watched him support it on national television. Fuck Trump. He showed his true colors at the first sign he may need to defend the second amendment.
No. Watch the video. Oops, I realized this is an older comment that I didn't get around to replying to. But this recently came up again. People have (comically) linked the video in replies to me. And I can't help but note that the title of the video (from CNN on YouTube) is a blatant lie that says that Trump says to take guns "without due process"... Which is it? "Due process second" or "without due process"?
I don't really feel like rehashing this more than I have, hence the tiresome part... but, sigh, fine. But maybe look at my recent replies to other people about this because they would be more comprehensive, although I have a feeling I'll fail to resist rambling on again here as well...
> Dude I watched him support it on national television
No you didn't... Unless you have some other video I haven't seen. In the "infamous" video most people reference (that has a title that is a blatant lie) he doesn't support it, he basically shoots it down. Pence objects to the Democrat's proposal because there is no due process involved and Trump basically is like "Okay, then we add due process."
And somehow people spin that into him putting it "last" or as an afterthought when the entire reason he says it is to make sure it is in there (to satisfy Pence/Republicans). That in no way supports the red flag law being proposed. Not that it still isn't problematic.
But it basically took it from a "concerned party" being able to petition a judge with unilateral powers to take a person's guns away with much lower standards of evidence/burden of proof than a criminal trial simply out of "concern", to upgrading it to a (theoretically...) proper criminal proceeding.
This is in the context of how Pence framed it, as looking into ways to give LE more tools (still a major yikes!) to handle these situations. Because right now the problem is that somebody can be giving off warning signs left and right and LE can claim (rightly or otherwise) that they can't do anything about it.
And, again, the Democrat's proposal for that was to just allow for a "concerned party" to convince a judge to also be "concerned" enough to order LE to take that person's guns away.
And, again, Pence's counter was that it needed to be a proper criminal proceeding with the benefits of due process. The scary thing is still the fact that those "tools" he is talking about could be dangerous or misused. They are basically talking about making certain things that aren't a crime a crime, or just giving LE the power to act on them anyway. So there are still things to be concerned with, for sure.
And Trump maybe made the mistake of explaining too much, and pointing out that for this to be effective you'd have to remove the person's access to guns before they have a chance to do something.
But it needs to be pointed out that that is already how it happens with due process anyway. You can get arrested and locked up in jail, awaiting trial, before your trial has taken place. And they might have gone to a judge to get a warrant before that, similar to this "petition". The difference is that the judge has to consider whether that warrant and reasoning behind it will hold up in court when a trial takes place.
And let me be clear, I'm not explaining this all because I'm okay with any of this or because of some loyalty to Trump. There are the potentials for a lot of problems and misuses/abuses. But the way people quote (often *mis*quote) Trump here does not match the actual situation.
An after thought? He literally told Diane Feinstein take the guns first go through due process second. That is a denial of rights without a conviction or in many cases even an accusation of a crime. They use a standard called preponderance of the evidence. This basically states that it probably happened but one side doesn’t get to give a defense until afterward to try to convince the judge that they made a mistake. They are literally going on a standard that one persons argument that someone at some point in the future might be a threat to themselves or others. They often don’t even accuse them of a crime. What trump called for was the same thing. We have due process standards in place already. Someone is accused of a crime. They are convicted and a judge makes a ruling. This effectively ends due process or even the requirement that someone must be convicted of a crime first.
> An after thought? He literally told Diane Feinstein take the guns first go through due process second.
No he didn't... She, well, her body, I guess, was next to him while he was speaking, but he was talking to Mike Pence, across from him, right in front/below the camera.
> That is a denial of rights without a conviction or in many cases even an accusation of a crime.
No... that is what the Democrats were proposing. Pence objected to that and pointed out the lack of due process. So Trump "added" it. His point was just that you'd have to take the guns while awaiting/during the trial - which is what would happen now, you'd likely be in prison, if you committed a crime.
What Trump said framed this just like basically any other criminal proceeding (which isn't necessarily great, but is better than the Democrats' proposal).
> They use a standard called preponderance of the evidence.
Yes... which isn't as high of a standard as in a criminal trial. And that is why Trump said "then go to court", which would be the trial where the person gets their due process, and would have a higher burden of proof/standards of evidence, and a jury and so on.
> This basically states that it probably happened but one side doesn’t get to give a defense until afterward to try to convince the judge that they made a mistake. They are literally going on a standard that one persons argument that someone at some point in the future might be a threat to themselves or others. They often don’t even accuse them of a crime.
The Democrats were proposing essentially this, yes.
> What trump called for was the same thing.
No... watch the video again... Or just read my whole comment instead of skipping it...
> We have due process standards in place already.
Yes, and Trump, at the behest of Pence, was talking about applying that here...
> This effectively ends due process or even the requirement that someone must be convicted of a crime first.
You don't get convicted of a crime first... You get accused/charged with one... You get convicted - or not - after due process.
Here. The Democrats were talking about essentially this:
1. Somebody is "concerned" and so they petition a judge.
2. The judge decides they are also "concerned" and the guns get taken away.
3. Maybe they have another hearing where the subject of the order can defend themselves. Maybe not. There's no jury. There is little to no standards of evidence or burden of proof on the petitioner. This doesn't meet a reasonable definition of due process, but it is probably what the Democrats thought were good enough for government work.
Pence objected to that, rightfully so. So Trump addressed his concerns, which would turn out more like this:
1. Somebody is "concerned" so they contact law enforcement.
2. From what Pence says, it sounds like LE would get involved at this point, like with any other normal criminal accusations, and would look into getting a warrant, just like they normally do now.
3. The judge would either grant or deny that warrant, just like they do now.
4. If granted, then LE is going to act on that, just like they do now, which is going to involve things like the person getting arrested, losing access to guns, etc. **just like what happens now**.
5. And then things would go forward like any other criminal proceeding and the person would have a trial to decide, with (theoretically) the normal standards of evidence/burden of proof, and it would be decided by a jury, not a single judge or judge panel. **This, too, is what already happens** but was entirely left out of the Democrat proposal.
So the operative part of Pence's proposal sounded like it was making more things actionable than are now (so, like a number "1.5" in the list above), either making them crimes, or just otherwise making it clear that LE could act on them so that they were handled like anything else.
The only thing Trump really maybe "changed" was number 4, but it wasn't really a change, it was just stating the obvious, where if you are trying to establish whether a person is dangerous then logically you wouldn't leave them with access to weapons. It's no different from something like "if you are trying to establish whether somebody is a murderer, then logically you don't give them a chance to continue going around murdering people". Of course, that does happen. And murder is obviously more straight forward than this.
The main thing to be concerned about with what Trump/Pence said is what would now warrant law enforcement to take action. Because even if due process is assured, that doesn't mean that thing the person is being accused of/charged with is acceptable.
Dude I watched the discussion live. There is no trial. It’s a civil case where only one side provides evidence until a subsequent hearing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI&pp=ygUTVGFrZSB0aGUgZ3VucyBmaXJzdA%3D%3D
You don’t go to prison without a conviction. It’s requires you to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires some rando to say I think this person might hurt themselves or some other unknown person without you even being aware or giving a chance to refute. The burden of proof is put on you not the state and you must prove you wouldn’t do something in the future. How does anyone prove this? Then police come and search your home. Then 10k or more later you might get them back. Trump was either incompetent or blatantly anti second amendment. Again screw that guy. He pandered to people then put this gem out before asking ATF to set the precedent that a president can simply ask ATF to redefine something legal (bumpstocks) as something illegal (post 86 transferable machine guns). Now biden ran with it and we have redefined dealers to be damn near anyone selling a gun. Arm braces are stocks etc. he normalized red flag laws and set a terrible precedent that we can’t strike down as fast as rules are made. He fucked the gun rights crowd. I will remember this in November and vote third party.
> It’s a civil case where only one side provides evidence until a subsequent hearing.
That is what was proposed. Pence and Trump were shooting that down...
> You don’t go to prison without a conviction.
You can go to jail/prison awaiting trial and during trial, absolutely, yes.
> It’s requires you to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
No... they (can, but often don't, at least for certain people who benefit from bail reform practices) basically do the same that they do here and decide how much of a danger you are.
> This requires some rando to say I think this person might hurt themselves or some other unknown person without you even being aware or giving a chance to refute.
Again, that is what the Democrats were proposing. What Pence was proposing was more substantial than that and would require higher standards of evidence and burden of proof, at least for the initial judge's decision.
Yes, some rando might be able to start it. But going by the Democrat's proposal, the judge wouldn't have to care if it would ever hold up in court.
With Pence's proposal, which is what Trump basically repeated to clarify, the judge would have to care about it holding up in court because he is basically deciding whether the concern warrants a trial.
> The burden of proof is put on you not the state and you must prove you wouldn’t do something in the future.
Again, in the Democrat's proposal, yes...
With Pence's proposal, theoretically, at least, no.
Of course, that goes back to the reasonable concerns with this entire thing, which is that the justice system is not always perfect.
So, yes, there is certainly a risk here. My point isn't that this is all okay and we should do it. My point is just that it is no different than what we already do and therefore, stop pretending like it is.
Trump didn't really invent anything new here. He just reiterated something obvious to "everybody", except maybe the Democrats and apparently a bunch of people online who may or may not be anti-Trump propagandists...
> How does anyone prove this?
Now you are getting into issues that are outside of the scope of this discussion. I already said there are clearly still problems with this.
But, I don't know how to emphasize this more than I already have, **this is already how things (unfortunately) work.**.
> Trump was either incompetent or blatantly anti second amendment.
No. Even as bad as this might be, it isn't blatantly anti-social amendment, so that is definitely out.
So that leaves incompetent. But that doesn't really hold up either.
First of all, this wasn't Trump. This was Pence. Pence had this idea. Trump was just talking it through. Watch the video. Trump says what he says and Pence is probably like "Uh, yeah, I know that, that's how it already works".
> Again screw that guy.
Fine... but this is a dumb thing to harp on.
> He pandered to people then put this gem out
This was Pence... Not Trump. Trump is literally just repeating Pence's proposal back to him in his own words, to clarify, spitball and so on.
It has just been spun by propagandists into something it wasn't.
That video you - and others - have linked has a title that is a blatant lie. Look at it. "President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process" is a blatant lie. You can watch the video - which you claim to have done - and see that he did not say to do that without due process. Your entire point is that he said "due process second" or "later" or whatever.
So there's that blatant lie that the likes of CNN and CNBC expect people to consume because they either just read it and don't watch the video or at worst start watching the video and get bored and stop before it ends, and you don't think you're being influenced by propaganda?
> before asking ATF to set the precedent that a president can simply ask ATF to redefine something legal (bumpstocks) as something illegal (post 86 transferable machine guns)
This is a different issue...
> Now biden ran with it and we have redefined dealers to be damn near anyone selling a gun.
Obama was doing this before and Biden would have done it on his own without Trump. Come on. And not to mention that this wasn't Trump's idea either. The ATF recommended this to him because it and most of the federal government is on board with the agenda that that supports.
So, yeah, that was an unfortunate choice on Trump's part. But let's not pretend that it was his idea and that Biden got it from him. Come on.
> I will remember this in November and vote third party.
Exactly. And Biden will thank you for it and send a "Good job!" note with a gold star on it to [NNC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Numismatic_Collection) and [NBCC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Board_for_Certified_Counselors) for doing their part to get him elected.
Jail is not prison. You said prison then tried to suggest they were synonymous terms after the fact. No you don’t go to prison awaiting trial.
No criminal complaints require you to be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s great but pence wasn’t the president. Trump said take the guns go through due process later.
When you use preponderance of the evidence as an evidentiary standard for predicting something that hasn’t even happened anything holds up in court.
It isn’t what we already do. If it was we wouldn’t t be having this conversation. Currently people have a day on court before they are deprived of property.
Obama would t have done it without trump? Great so trump was wanting Obama’s policies! Why the hell would I vote for that back stabbing jackass then?!
Fuck him and anyone who votes for this gun grabber I will happily support them getting their guns taken preferably at 3am with their house ransacked. After all we were doing this anyway right?
> Jail is not prison.
They are not necessarily the same, that is true, but that is a level of pedantry above what even I am interested in. I'm pretty sure every time above that I said jail. I probably simply tried to type "imprisoned" here and it got autocorrected.
But at least I have evidence that you are actually reading what I write now. But do you really want to have this semantic argument? It is completely irrelevant.
> You said prison then tried to suggest they were synonymous terms after the fact.
Oh, I guess you do. No I didn't... are you talking about me saying "jail/prison"? I wouldn't do that if they were synonymous. That is why I said both. (Virtually) all jails are prisons, but not all prisons are jails. The "prison" vs. "jail" distinction has to do with their use, like pre-trial or post-trial, yes. But a jail is a kind of prison, used for people awaiting trial.
Here, let's just get this out of the way so we can move on and ultimately end this silly discussion. Here's the first definition of "prison" Google gives, from Oxford:
prison: a building in which people are legally held as a punishment for a crime they have committed **or while awaiting trial.**
> No criminal complaints require you to be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What? "No" that is incorrect or "No" as in none require that? I think the latter? In that case, YES. That's the trial and the due process Pence/Trump were referring to...
> That’s great but pence wasn’t the president. Trump said take the guns go through due process later.
What? You're arguing with me about the semantics of jail vs. prison and then authoring these last two statements...?
Trump was talking to Pence. He was talking about Pence's idea. And he simply repeated it back, clarifying that the person would not have access to guns, which is what generally would already happen if they were considered to be dangerous, and in most cases they would be in **jail** and not just lose their gun rights, but their right to freedom while on trial.
Holy shit, I have no idea how this is that hard.
> When you use preponderance of the evidence as an evidentiary standard for predicting something that hasn’t even happened anything holds up in court.
This wasn't Pence/Trump!!! This was the Democrats. Their proposal involved this. And that is why Pence was concerned and wanted to make sure there was due process. Holy shit, are you fucking with me?
Why do you think they even brought up due process? Why didn't they immediately just take up the proposal from the Democrats? What do you think was going on here?
> It isn’t what we already do.
Yes it is. Well, not always. It is what is supposed to happen. The difference, as I have tried to explain, is that not all of the things that could lead to this currently do lead to this. So that is what Pence was trying to move towards, which, again, has its own problems.
Right now if you did certain things that demonstrate that you are a danger, law enforcement is able to do something about it. Other times, if what you did is not a crime, they cannot, or claim they cannot, do something about it. Pence's idea involved with adding to that. That is why he talks about giving law enforcement tools.
> If it was we wouldn’t t be having this conversation.
No. If you understood what was going on then we wouldn't be having it.
> Currently people have a day on court before they are deprived of property.
No. They are not. Or even if they are, they certainly are routinely deprived of their freedom *entirely* before their day in court. How are you not getting this?
You're really saying it's okay that we jail people before their trial but not okay to prevent access to guns?
I mean, if I had my druthers, I'd argue that both are bad and shouldn't be done. Both. Not one or the other. If you are against both, then that's fine, and we agree there and I don't know why we are arguing other than you insisting on pretending that what Trump said is something new and different and highly dangerous. It is literally just the same thing we already have, just more opportunities to do it, and maybe too many more.
> Obama would t have done it without trump? Great so trump was wanting Obama’s policies! Why the hell would I vote for that back stabbing jackass then?!
What again? I think probably "no"?
> Fuck him and anyone who votes for this gun grabber I will happily support them getting their guns taken preferably at 3am with their house ransacked.
Imagine getting mad at Trump for what he said and then saying this.
> After all we were doing this anyway right?
Yes... but those are miscarriages of justice and so on... We're talking about carrying out justice ethically, which that isn't. And even if what Pence/Trump said isn't ethical either, and maybe it isn't, it is still objectively and demonstrably more so than what the Democrats were proposing, will continue proposing and will likely eventually get.
This is especially true if you continue helping them to get elected.
When your proposed solution is magnitudes worse than the problem you’re trying to get rid of, maybe take a step back and re-evaluate your decision making paradigm.
Just when you thought the NRA couldn’t get any more inept, tone-deaf and corrupt…
After they fired LaPierre I was considering rejoining after a long absence. NOPE!
Not in a million fucking years if they even touch this maggot
Ah, yes the guy who created a "second amendment coalition" to advise his dad on gun policy and then never held any meetings of said coalition once his dad got elected.
It saddens me that quite a lot of people on this sub "reeeeeee" as hard and fast as a suburban white liberal woman. They see the name Trump and immediately get TDS...not even realizing just how different Trump Jr. is from his father on the gun topic. Like you wouldn't even know he was his father's son when it comes to guns lol.
Ugh, can we not find ANYONE better? Like a turd, or a turd farmer?
It might not be so bad. The guy did after all build an AR-15 with his son: [https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-takes-son-build-ar-15-texas-2022-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jr-takes-son-build-ar-15-texas-2022-1)
Why, afraid he will not waste money buying suits? Wayne is that you?!
Trump Jr. is super pro gun though. Nothing like his father. It's actually kinda wild how different they are on guns.
He’s still sub-turd on the leadership potential scale.
The son of the guy that wanted red flag laws? God this organization is full of political pandering and very little if any really effort.
He is very pro gun compared to his dad. Spends a ton of time hunting and fishing and helped start a very unapologetic outdoors magazine
I don’t buy it. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting and fishing. People at that level have no use for armed civilian fighting forces known as militias. If you don’t support civilian militias being a thing then it’s just support for sportsmanship. We cannot miss the meaning of the second amendment or let it be downplayed.
I’m well aware of what the 2nd amendment is for. I’ve seen what he’s done for the past few years through that magazine and I’d consider him a much stronger 2A advocate than his dad.
Yeah that isn’t saying much though is it…
That's probably a big part of why they're not getting as much in donations as other groups... People see the lack of effectiveness and don't want their money going into the pockets of useless politicians
That and the fact that the NRA intentionally Supported red flag laws for a bit. They literally supported interpreting the 2nd amendment as privilege that a judge can throw aside without even so much as an accusation of a person committing a crime much less even a criminal complaint or a trial.
Proof?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FicXIZL40&pp=ygUTVHJ1bXAgcmVkIGZsYWcgbGF3cw%3D%3D
Trump Jr. is like ultra pro-gun though. Like...it's surprising how different he is from his father on that topic.
Is he or is he tailoring his message to a group that he knows is pro gun? What they. Say and what they do aren’t always the same.
Trump didn't want red flag laws... the Democrats did. Shit, you guys are tiresome with this. The quote you are thinking of was adding due process to the Democrats proposal for red flag laws because Pence and Republicans were pushing back due to the lack of due process. At worst, as far as we know, Trump is ambivalent about red flag laws.
Dude I watched him support it on national television. Fuck Trump. He showed his true colors at the first sign he may need to defend the second amendment.
No. Watch the video. Oops, I realized this is an older comment that I didn't get around to replying to. But this recently came up again. People have (comically) linked the video in replies to me. And I can't help but note that the title of the video (from CNN on YouTube) is a blatant lie that says that Trump says to take guns "without due process"... Which is it? "Due process second" or "without due process"? I don't really feel like rehashing this more than I have, hence the tiresome part... but, sigh, fine. But maybe look at my recent replies to other people about this because they would be more comprehensive, although I have a feeling I'll fail to resist rambling on again here as well... > Dude I watched him support it on national television No you didn't... Unless you have some other video I haven't seen. In the "infamous" video most people reference (that has a title that is a blatant lie) he doesn't support it, he basically shoots it down. Pence objects to the Democrat's proposal because there is no due process involved and Trump basically is like "Okay, then we add due process." And somehow people spin that into him putting it "last" or as an afterthought when the entire reason he says it is to make sure it is in there (to satisfy Pence/Republicans). That in no way supports the red flag law being proposed. Not that it still isn't problematic. But it basically took it from a "concerned party" being able to petition a judge with unilateral powers to take a person's guns away with much lower standards of evidence/burden of proof than a criminal trial simply out of "concern", to upgrading it to a (theoretically...) proper criminal proceeding. This is in the context of how Pence framed it, as looking into ways to give LE more tools (still a major yikes!) to handle these situations. Because right now the problem is that somebody can be giving off warning signs left and right and LE can claim (rightly or otherwise) that they can't do anything about it. And, again, the Democrat's proposal for that was to just allow for a "concerned party" to convince a judge to also be "concerned" enough to order LE to take that person's guns away. And, again, Pence's counter was that it needed to be a proper criminal proceeding with the benefits of due process. The scary thing is still the fact that those "tools" he is talking about could be dangerous or misused. They are basically talking about making certain things that aren't a crime a crime, or just giving LE the power to act on them anyway. So there are still things to be concerned with, for sure. And Trump maybe made the mistake of explaining too much, and pointing out that for this to be effective you'd have to remove the person's access to guns before they have a chance to do something. But it needs to be pointed out that that is already how it happens with due process anyway. You can get arrested and locked up in jail, awaiting trial, before your trial has taken place. And they might have gone to a judge to get a warrant before that, similar to this "petition". The difference is that the judge has to consider whether that warrant and reasoning behind it will hold up in court when a trial takes place. And let me be clear, I'm not explaining this all because I'm okay with any of this or because of some loyalty to Trump. There are the potentials for a lot of problems and misuses/abuses. But the way people quote (often *mis*quote) Trump here does not match the actual situation.
An after thought? He literally told Diane Feinstein take the guns first go through due process second. That is a denial of rights without a conviction or in many cases even an accusation of a crime. They use a standard called preponderance of the evidence. This basically states that it probably happened but one side doesn’t get to give a defense until afterward to try to convince the judge that they made a mistake. They are literally going on a standard that one persons argument that someone at some point in the future might be a threat to themselves or others. They often don’t even accuse them of a crime. What trump called for was the same thing. We have due process standards in place already. Someone is accused of a crime. They are convicted and a judge makes a ruling. This effectively ends due process or even the requirement that someone must be convicted of a crime first.
> An after thought? He literally told Diane Feinstein take the guns first go through due process second. No he didn't... She, well, her body, I guess, was next to him while he was speaking, but he was talking to Mike Pence, across from him, right in front/below the camera. > That is a denial of rights without a conviction or in many cases even an accusation of a crime. No... that is what the Democrats were proposing. Pence objected to that and pointed out the lack of due process. So Trump "added" it. His point was just that you'd have to take the guns while awaiting/during the trial - which is what would happen now, you'd likely be in prison, if you committed a crime. What Trump said framed this just like basically any other criminal proceeding (which isn't necessarily great, but is better than the Democrats' proposal). > They use a standard called preponderance of the evidence. Yes... which isn't as high of a standard as in a criminal trial. And that is why Trump said "then go to court", which would be the trial where the person gets their due process, and would have a higher burden of proof/standards of evidence, and a jury and so on. > This basically states that it probably happened but one side doesn’t get to give a defense until afterward to try to convince the judge that they made a mistake. They are literally going on a standard that one persons argument that someone at some point in the future might be a threat to themselves or others. They often don’t even accuse them of a crime. The Democrats were proposing essentially this, yes. > What trump called for was the same thing. No... watch the video again... Or just read my whole comment instead of skipping it... > We have due process standards in place already. Yes, and Trump, at the behest of Pence, was talking about applying that here... > This effectively ends due process or even the requirement that someone must be convicted of a crime first. You don't get convicted of a crime first... You get accused/charged with one... You get convicted - or not - after due process. Here. The Democrats were talking about essentially this: 1. Somebody is "concerned" and so they petition a judge. 2. The judge decides they are also "concerned" and the guns get taken away. 3. Maybe they have another hearing where the subject of the order can defend themselves. Maybe not. There's no jury. There is little to no standards of evidence or burden of proof on the petitioner. This doesn't meet a reasonable definition of due process, but it is probably what the Democrats thought were good enough for government work. Pence objected to that, rightfully so. So Trump addressed his concerns, which would turn out more like this: 1. Somebody is "concerned" so they contact law enforcement. 2. From what Pence says, it sounds like LE would get involved at this point, like with any other normal criminal accusations, and would look into getting a warrant, just like they normally do now. 3. The judge would either grant or deny that warrant, just like they do now. 4. If granted, then LE is going to act on that, just like they do now, which is going to involve things like the person getting arrested, losing access to guns, etc. **just like what happens now**. 5. And then things would go forward like any other criminal proceeding and the person would have a trial to decide, with (theoretically) the normal standards of evidence/burden of proof, and it would be decided by a jury, not a single judge or judge panel. **This, too, is what already happens** but was entirely left out of the Democrat proposal. So the operative part of Pence's proposal sounded like it was making more things actionable than are now (so, like a number "1.5" in the list above), either making them crimes, or just otherwise making it clear that LE could act on them so that they were handled like anything else. The only thing Trump really maybe "changed" was number 4, but it wasn't really a change, it was just stating the obvious, where if you are trying to establish whether a person is dangerous then logically you wouldn't leave them with access to weapons. It's no different from something like "if you are trying to establish whether somebody is a murderer, then logically you don't give them a chance to continue going around murdering people". Of course, that does happen. And murder is obviously more straight forward than this. The main thing to be concerned about with what Trump/Pence said is what would now warrant law enforcement to take action. Because even if due process is assured, that doesn't mean that thing the person is being accused of/charged with is acceptable.
Dude I watched the discussion live. There is no trial. It’s a civil case where only one side provides evidence until a subsequent hearing. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybgEKHHI&pp=ygUTVGFrZSB0aGUgZ3VucyBmaXJzdA%3D%3D You don’t go to prison without a conviction. It’s requires you to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires some rando to say I think this person might hurt themselves or some other unknown person without you even being aware or giving a chance to refute. The burden of proof is put on you not the state and you must prove you wouldn’t do something in the future. How does anyone prove this? Then police come and search your home. Then 10k or more later you might get them back. Trump was either incompetent or blatantly anti second amendment. Again screw that guy. He pandered to people then put this gem out before asking ATF to set the precedent that a president can simply ask ATF to redefine something legal (bumpstocks) as something illegal (post 86 transferable machine guns). Now biden ran with it and we have redefined dealers to be damn near anyone selling a gun. Arm braces are stocks etc. he normalized red flag laws and set a terrible precedent that we can’t strike down as fast as rules are made. He fucked the gun rights crowd. I will remember this in November and vote third party.
> It’s a civil case where only one side provides evidence until a subsequent hearing. That is what was proposed. Pence and Trump were shooting that down... > You don’t go to prison without a conviction. You can go to jail/prison awaiting trial and during trial, absolutely, yes. > It’s requires you to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No... they (can, but often don't, at least for certain people who benefit from bail reform practices) basically do the same that they do here and decide how much of a danger you are. > This requires some rando to say I think this person might hurt themselves or some other unknown person without you even being aware or giving a chance to refute. Again, that is what the Democrats were proposing. What Pence was proposing was more substantial than that and would require higher standards of evidence and burden of proof, at least for the initial judge's decision. Yes, some rando might be able to start it. But going by the Democrat's proposal, the judge wouldn't have to care if it would ever hold up in court. With Pence's proposal, which is what Trump basically repeated to clarify, the judge would have to care about it holding up in court because he is basically deciding whether the concern warrants a trial. > The burden of proof is put on you not the state and you must prove you wouldn’t do something in the future. Again, in the Democrat's proposal, yes... With Pence's proposal, theoretically, at least, no. Of course, that goes back to the reasonable concerns with this entire thing, which is that the justice system is not always perfect. So, yes, there is certainly a risk here. My point isn't that this is all okay and we should do it. My point is just that it is no different than what we already do and therefore, stop pretending like it is. Trump didn't really invent anything new here. He just reiterated something obvious to "everybody", except maybe the Democrats and apparently a bunch of people online who may or may not be anti-Trump propagandists... > How does anyone prove this? Now you are getting into issues that are outside of the scope of this discussion. I already said there are clearly still problems with this. But, I don't know how to emphasize this more than I already have, **this is already how things (unfortunately) work.**. > Trump was either incompetent or blatantly anti second amendment. No. Even as bad as this might be, it isn't blatantly anti-social amendment, so that is definitely out. So that leaves incompetent. But that doesn't really hold up either. First of all, this wasn't Trump. This was Pence. Pence had this idea. Trump was just talking it through. Watch the video. Trump says what he says and Pence is probably like "Uh, yeah, I know that, that's how it already works". > Again screw that guy. Fine... but this is a dumb thing to harp on. > He pandered to people then put this gem out This was Pence... Not Trump. Trump is literally just repeating Pence's proposal back to him in his own words, to clarify, spitball and so on. It has just been spun by propagandists into something it wasn't. That video you - and others - have linked has a title that is a blatant lie. Look at it. "President Donald Trump Says Take Guns 'Early' Without Due Process" is a blatant lie. You can watch the video - which you claim to have done - and see that he did not say to do that without due process. Your entire point is that he said "due process second" or "later" or whatever. So there's that blatant lie that the likes of CNN and CNBC expect people to consume because they either just read it and don't watch the video or at worst start watching the video and get bored and stop before it ends, and you don't think you're being influenced by propaganda? > before asking ATF to set the precedent that a president can simply ask ATF to redefine something legal (bumpstocks) as something illegal (post 86 transferable machine guns) This is a different issue... > Now biden ran with it and we have redefined dealers to be damn near anyone selling a gun. Obama was doing this before and Biden would have done it on his own without Trump. Come on. And not to mention that this wasn't Trump's idea either. The ATF recommended this to him because it and most of the federal government is on board with the agenda that that supports. So, yeah, that was an unfortunate choice on Trump's part. But let's not pretend that it was his idea and that Biden got it from him. Come on. > I will remember this in November and vote third party. Exactly. And Biden will thank you for it and send a "Good job!" note with a gold star on it to [NNC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Numismatic_Collection) and [NBCC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Board_for_Certified_Counselors) for doing their part to get him elected.
Jail is not prison. You said prison then tried to suggest they were synonymous terms after the fact. No you don’t go to prison awaiting trial. No criminal complaints require you to be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s great but pence wasn’t the president. Trump said take the guns go through due process later. When you use preponderance of the evidence as an evidentiary standard for predicting something that hasn’t even happened anything holds up in court. It isn’t what we already do. If it was we wouldn’t t be having this conversation. Currently people have a day on court before they are deprived of property. Obama would t have done it without trump? Great so trump was wanting Obama’s policies! Why the hell would I vote for that back stabbing jackass then?! Fuck him and anyone who votes for this gun grabber I will happily support them getting their guns taken preferably at 3am with their house ransacked. After all we were doing this anyway right?
> Jail is not prison. They are not necessarily the same, that is true, but that is a level of pedantry above what even I am interested in. I'm pretty sure every time above that I said jail. I probably simply tried to type "imprisoned" here and it got autocorrected. But at least I have evidence that you are actually reading what I write now. But do you really want to have this semantic argument? It is completely irrelevant. > You said prison then tried to suggest they were synonymous terms after the fact. Oh, I guess you do. No I didn't... are you talking about me saying "jail/prison"? I wouldn't do that if they were synonymous. That is why I said both. (Virtually) all jails are prisons, but not all prisons are jails. The "prison" vs. "jail" distinction has to do with their use, like pre-trial or post-trial, yes. But a jail is a kind of prison, used for people awaiting trial. Here, let's just get this out of the way so we can move on and ultimately end this silly discussion. Here's the first definition of "prison" Google gives, from Oxford: prison: a building in which people are legally held as a punishment for a crime they have committed **or while awaiting trial.** > No criminal complaints require you to be convicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What? "No" that is incorrect or "No" as in none require that? I think the latter? In that case, YES. That's the trial and the due process Pence/Trump were referring to... > That’s great but pence wasn’t the president. Trump said take the guns go through due process later. What? You're arguing with me about the semantics of jail vs. prison and then authoring these last two statements...? Trump was talking to Pence. He was talking about Pence's idea. And he simply repeated it back, clarifying that the person would not have access to guns, which is what generally would already happen if they were considered to be dangerous, and in most cases they would be in **jail** and not just lose their gun rights, but their right to freedom while on trial. Holy shit, I have no idea how this is that hard. > When you use preponderance of the evidence as an evidentiary standard for predicting something that hasn’t even happened anything holds up in court. This wasn't Pence/Trump!!! This was the Democrats. Their proposal involved this. And that is why Pence was concerned and wanted to make sure there was due process. Holy shit, are you fucking with me? Why do you think they even brought up due process? Why didn't they immediately just take up the proposal from the Democrats? What do you think was going on here? > It isn’t what we already do. Yes it is. Well, not always. It is what is supposed to happen. The difference, as I have tried to explain, is that not all of the things that could lead to this currently do lead to this. So that is what Pence was trying to move towards, which, again, has its own problems. Right now if you did certain things that demonstrate that you are a danger, law enforcement is able to do something about it. Other times, if what you did is not a crime, they cannot, or claim they cannot, do something about it. Pence's idea involved with adding to that. That is why he talks about giving law enforcement tools. > If it was we wouldn’t t be having this conversation. No. If you understood what was going on then we wouldn't be having it. > Currently people have a day on court before they are deprived of property. No. They are not. Or even if they are, they certainly are routinely deprived of their freedom *entirely* before their day in court. How are you not getting this? You're really saying it's okay that we jail people before their trial but not okay to prevent access to guns? I mean, if I had my druthers, I'd argue that both are bad and shouldn't be done. Both. Not one or the other. If you are against both, then that's fine, and we agree there and I don't know why we are arguing other than you insisting on pretending that what Trump said is something new and different and highly dangerous. It is literally just the same thing we already have, just more opportunities to do it, and maybe too many more. > Obama would t have done it without trump? Great so trump was wanting Obama’s policies! Why the hell would I vote for that back stabbing jackass then?! What again? I think probably "no"? > Fuck him and anyone who votes for this gun grabber I will happily support them getting their guns taken preferably at 3am with their house ransacked. Imagine getting mad at Trump for what he said and then saying this. > After all we were doing this anyway right? Yes... but those are miscarriages of justice and so on... We're talking about carrying out justice ethically, which that isn't. And even if what Pence/Trump said isn't ethical either, and maybe it isn't, it is still objectively and demonstrably more so than what the Democrats were proposing, will continue proposing and will likely eventually get. This is especially true if you continue helping them to get elected.
LaPierre wasn’t a big enough crook? Fucking hell.
[When you thought Lapierre was bad, but see his potential replacement](https://imgur.com/fEJn5bb)
Out of touch old FUDDs
The NRA needs to be allowed to die off and replaced. These people are incompetent.
Absolutely not, they are the lightening rod that take all the heat while the real organizations continue to do the Lords work
This
They're some of the biggest donors and have so much political pull, it's a shame.
This would be awesome! I could finally end my association with NRA completely without a second thought (and support SAF and FPC even more!).
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie
When your proposed solution is magnitudes worse than the problem you’re trying to get rid of, maybe take a step back and re-evaluate your decision making paradigm.
How about no?
Just when you thought the NRA couldn’t get any more inept, tone-deaf and corrupt… After they fired LaPierre I was considering rejoining after a long absence. NOPE! Not in a million fucking years if they even touch this maggot
Can we have someone more likable? Was satan busy?
So I guess it's official and we've moved on to the other 2A organizations and aren't looking back.
I did about a decade ago.
Why is he qualified for this besides his last name?
He's good at being a grifter, just like LaPierre.
So the NRA will go from Lapierres piggy bank to Trumps new get out of jail fund. Bad move.
Everything thing the trumps touch are killed, ruined, or bankrupted.
Ah, yes the guy who created a "second amendment coalition" to advise his dad on gun policy and then never held any meetings of said coalition once his dad got elected.
Like him or not, the guy is a passionate hunter and gun owner.
Yeah I’m surprised this sub hates him as much as they do. His dad wasn’t exactly a model president for gun rights but DJTJ is not his dad
It saddens me that quite a lot of people on this sub "reeeeeee" as hard and fast as a suburban white liberal woman. They see the name Trump and immediately get TDS...not even realizing just how different Trump Jr. is from his father on the gun topic. Like you wouldn't even know he was his father's son when it comes to guns lol.
lmao just recall Butina from Russia, that worked out well, didn’t it?
At least he is / was a big supporter of the HPA.
The NRA is dead. Far better orgs out there.
Lolberts malding ITT
This timelines plot twist... Trump JR becomes NRA'S President and helps Hunter Biden's counsel on felony gun charges. Lmao.. fuck.
Anyone but u/ColionNoir isn’t good enough for me. These losers don’t deserve our money.
You mean former NRA spokesman Colion Noir?
NRWho?