Donald Trump on gun free zones
“We’re gonna get rid them”
While standing in a gun free zone.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 20th, 2016 at 4:56 pm
Too bad your boy Jeb! came up as a limp dick. Now we either vote for Trump or Hitlery. You chose.
May 20th, 2016 at 5:11 pm
lol at Jeb being uncle’s “boy.”
You been around here long?
But yeah, trump is going to be living in a gun-free zone for the next nine years if he wins.
May 20th, 2016 at 5:38 pm
“Gonna” as in not yet.
And your nra leadership is apparently good with the irony theirownselves.
May 20th, 2016 at 5:49 pm
He could have the downstairs recreation area (it has been a bowling ally among many other things) turned into a range. And yeah, you would pay for it, but I would invite one citizen a day to shoot at the white house range with bernie targets, lunch provided. It’s as good an economic plan as I’ve heard from anybody. maybe I should run.
May 20th, 2016 at 6:02 pm
The SS “secret service”, in charge of “security, mandated a “gun free zone. Too bad that offended your tender sensibilities, but that is the way it is. I imagine people trying to use the roads were even more impacted.
May 20th, 2016 at 6:03 pm
When is Hitlery speaking to the NRA convention?
May 20th, 2016 at 7:43 pm
Fiftycal is right.
The Secret Service mandates that any venue under their protection be a gun-free zone while it’s under their protection (not necessarily before or after), and for a very good reason: They want to know who and where every lawfully armed person is, so if something bad happens, they’ll know who to shoot (and who not to shoot).
That’s why they won’t even allow LEOs who aren’t on their detail to be armed at the venue.
May 20th, 2016 at 9:50 pm
When the Secret Service mandates a gun free zone, it’s not gun free, they are providing the guns for security. I suppose Trump was referring to Federally imposed gun free zones, like schools, where there are no guns at all…an undefended, target-rich place where mass murderers can operate with impunity.
May 20th, 2016 at 10:04 pm
I have no doubt Trump was talking about schools and parks where they mandate ‘gun free zones’. I have no doubt the White House will NOT be a place where I can tote my Glock one day. I understand and it’s no biggie.
But I want to see the federal laws on ‘gun free zones’ abolished. I want to see states forced to recognize all CCWs (and cities like NYC to.)
Trump is not perfect, but if he keeps his word he will be a blessing. Maybe even get this country back on track, much like Reagan did.
May 20th, 2016 at 10:31 pm
Uncle, that’s both weak and stupid.
I know you don’t like Trump, but I hope you can do better than this.
May 21st, 2016 at 12:41 am
That’s not a gun-free zone.
That’s a government guns only zone.
May 21st, 2016 at 6:02 am
Folks, it is not just guns. It is knives of any types, tools (screwdrivers, etc), liquids, cameras (except selected media), cell phones, and a bunch more stuff. When VP Dick Cheney visited the Corps HQs at Ft Hood, folks were practically stripped naked. When Pres Obama came to Hood to speak at the memorial services for the Nov 5 shooting, all the civilian workers in the Corps HQs were required to take the day off with pay. And the Secret Service built a wall of shipping containers to block the line of sight when he was speaking.
May 21st, 2016 at 8:14 am
@Bill, that’s a reason there are lockdowns when an “active shooting” occurs. Victims are trapped for the perp shooter or shooters. Then survivors are forced to come out with their hands up and cell phones (cameras) confiscated lest they don’t fit the media and official narrative.
May 21st, 2016 at 2:55 pm
It offended my tender sensibilities. Seems my sensibilities get all kinda tender like whenever a government employee ignores a constitutional directive.
Lemme look this over again, just to be sure. A well regulated… etc. etc… ah! here it is – “..shall not be infringed unless a jerk from the executive branch’s security detail says so”.
That cleared that right up. /sarcasm
“…they won’t even allow LEO’s…”
My sensibilities just got all tender again. Any government employee, even cops, can be armed or disarmed whilst on the job. That’s part of what goes with being a public servant. But to insinuate that it’s okey dokey to ignore a constitutional prohibition because barney didn’t get to wear his holster is kinda missing the point. A lot.
If there are pragmatic reasons for disarming the populace in certain areas then the proper thing to do is amend the constitution to reflect that the government has that power. It’d still be immoral, just as any attempt to control people via prior restraint almost always is, but at least it wouldn’t be unconstitutional.
FiftycalTX is right in that it’s the way it is. But the way it is is wrong.
May 21st, 2016 at 4:10 pm
Publicola, I don’t get your point. Are you saying that if the government wants to forbid the carrying of weapons inside a prison it has to amend the Constitution to do it?
I think the government’s duty to provide for the public safety confers on it the responsibility, and therefore the ability, to forbid (or mandate) certain actions in certain places where a reasonable person would conclude that not doing so would constitute a foreseeable, credible threat to that public safety. Maybe you don’t see it that way. If you do, you and I may disagree on the details, but not on the fundamental principle.
May 22nd, 2016 at 1:17 am
Old 1811,
In a prison or jail, many Rights are diminished or prohibited as a condition of confinement. This is a necessary condition to ensure confinement against one’s will. But that is about the only credible exception to an individual’s Rights being respected by those in government.
The government’s duty to provide for public safety has been used repeatedly as justification for denial of individual Rights. I simply don’t buy it. Prior restraint (prohibition based on the general ability of something to cause harm) is insufficient cause for tossing the government’s controlling document out the window. & we’re not really talking about public safety. We’re talking about the safety of certain government officials.
My point isn’t that the constitution should be amended to allow the SS to disarm folks because some public servant is in the area; my point is that disarming people because a public servant in the area is wrong in & of itself. Amending the constitution to allow it would merely give legal covering to an act that is deplorable in principle, just as “free speech zones” or any other encumbrance on constitutionally protected Rights are a heinous degradation to the notion that we’re a free people, and those in government are not our betters.
Look at it this way – would you feel it “reasonable” if Hillary or Trump was attending a cook-out on your block, & the SS went to all the houses to make sure weapons were locked up & inaccessible & that no one had a pistol in their pocket as they strolled through their own neighborhood? If not, then what’s the difference twixt the public sidewalks by your house and any other area in the country where you may otherwise walk freely?
May 22nd, 2016 at 1:42 am
FiftycalTX is a paid Trump-sucker who’s apparently been assigned to troll gun sites today.
May 22nd, 2016 at 4:50 am
Trump recently came to speak at the Texas State Republican Convention and it was *NOT* a gun free zone. Thousands of delegates. Lots of people were armed, some openly, some covertly. Furthermore, about 40% of the room were pro-secession, and vast majority of the room voted for someone other than Trump.
May 22nd, 2016 at 11:34 am
>I know you don’t like Trump, but I hope you can do better than this.
Let’s be fair about Trump, all the statements Trump has made on the RKBA before 2015 sum up to a
C-or less. While he can talk a good talk, he doesn’t have a voting record on the RKBA.Let’s be honest about all the other candidates for President in the past few election cycles, at best they’ve all been weak-sauce for the RKBA.
While we’re at it, Bernie is a
D-and $hillary is a gun grabbing tyrant.The NRA held their nose and endorsed a stinker. Just like with McSame and Mittens.
May 22nd, 2016 at 11:51 am
To SDN: No ASSHOLE, I’m a conservative that realizes that one of TWO people will be elected. Trump or Hitlery. You apparently want Hitlery. I do not.
May 22nd, 2016 at 12:38 pm
Publicola:
I just want to respond to your hypothetical and then I’m done. We don’t, and won’t agree,so there’s no use in continuing to argue. You can go to your church and I’ll go to mine. Okay? So here goes:
In your hypothetical, the USSS is preventing private citizens from carrying weapons on their own property because a public figure is in the neighborhood. That’s a clear civil rights violation. In the Trump case I used as an example, anyone who attends it had to leave their property and consciously enter into a closed environment to see and hear the public figure. In doing so, the attendee agrees to abide by the rules of the venue, just the same as anyone who enters your business or home agrees to abide by your rules. That’s the difference.
May 22nd, 2016 at 2:29 pm
Old 1811,
Not just on their own property. In my hypothetical I included the sidewalks of the neighborhood they live in, which is not privately owned property.
If it were the rules set by the owner of the property I’d have no qualms. But the SS is declaring places within a certain area of a candidate to be gun free zones. That’s the problem, both constitutional & moral. Unless you think that for some reason the Right to own & carry only applies when you’re on your own land, then it’s as much an intrusion for the government to disarm someone on a sidewalk or in a place open to the public (schools, airports, airplanes, malls, buses, convention halls, etc) as it is for them to disarm someone in their own living room. Any of the aforementioned disarmament scenarios may make sense when viewed from the perspective of trying to keep a certain person safe, but It’s wrong to render me or you or anyone else that’s otherwise free defenseless to make a security details’ job easier. Plus there is that pesky constitution
& there’s always a use to continuing an argument. 🙂
May 22nd, 2016 at 4:28 pm
I see FiftycalTX is running around supporting gun squishy Trump on a bunch of sites today.
Trump says a lot of things. And most of the time he doesn’t believe them.
May 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 am
Old 1811, RKBA only is covered while in one’s home?
May 24th, 2016 at 2:22 pm
garyjohnson2016.com Because lets face it, only morons and syscophants would vote for either hilary or Trump
May 25th, 2016 at 5:49 pm
Justaguy, so you are saying that 30% or so of the US population are morons or sycophants?