Trump and His Supporters Have Blood On Their Hands For Mass Shootings

98% of all mass shootings have occurred in "gun free" zones. Those belong to the democrat party. At one time mentally ill people could be taken off the street for their and societies protection until a democrat supported lawsuit in New York state freed them in 1983. That belongs to the democrats. Other mass shootings have occurred from both illegal and legal immigrants from questionable countries. Guess who supports allowing anyone and everyone into this country? Yep, the democrats.
The NRA has repeatedly supported the idea of the mentally ill and criminals be denied the right to own a gun but instead of siding with the NRA the democrats have always thrown in a poison pill to stop the legislation. I guess the idea of solving a problem and saving lives is less important to democrats than having an issue. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...gun-rights-too

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...mental-illness

Now Trump wants to seize guns then have due process.

First off WTF fellow Texans, we are losing our clout. We are a mere 18 in guns per capita in the US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/mos...es-in-america/

Second off, anti-gunners you've got me confused.

California has really strict gun laws yet the gun murder rate per capita is only slightly lower than Texas, but more gun murders overall. And Texas by the way, has far more guns than California.

There are pockets in California that are freaking out of control with gun murders. How is that possible? Gun laws should have stopped that.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...s/state-totals

Now let's stop trying to blame guns. Lets stop demonizing people for wanting to protect a constitutional right. There is no evidence that strict gun control causes lower gun violence.

There are examples that show a correlation but that doesn't mean it is the cause. There are far too many examples to disprove that correlation = causation.

Now Trump wants to seize guns then have due process. Originally Posted by bamscram

That's why parrots should stay out of political discussions.

They keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over again.

When the "Government seizes" shit, they usually engage in "due process" after the property is seized. But parrots don't know that! If the "Government" doesn't do that .. the "shit" disappears!

You anti-Trumper parrots need to get some education before you start criticizing the POTUS ... You are exposing yourselves for the dumbasses you really are.

That's why parrots should stay out of political discussions.

You anti-Trumper parrots need to get some education before you start criticizing the POTUS ... You are exposing yourselves for the dumbasses you really are. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. He is a parrot as well changing his argument to satisfy who ever is in front of him.

First off WTF fellow Texans, we are losing our clout. We are a mere 18 in guns per capita in the US. Originally Posted by grean

Who the heck-fire only owns 18 guns anyway?!? Slackers!!

Now let's stop trying to blame guns. Lets stop demonizing people for wanting to protect a constitutional right. There is no evidence that strict gun control causes lower gun violence. Originally Posted by grean

Sh*tcago, DC, Baltimore, NYC, Newark come to mind as stupid-strict gun laws with outrageous murder rates. Plus I never did understand the misguided notion of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of an idiot user.

I found an insane claim about Plano Texas having the highest per capita gun ownership.

It was from a biased website, however, and therefore unreliable. Both sides pull numbers out of the air.

I cannot find a government site that backs it up or mainstream article that is supposed to at least fact check. I can only find by state on fbi and cdc websites.

Can anyone help?

Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. Originally Posted by grean

When he said seize the guns and then have "due process" he was "spot on" regarding the law of seizing movables (other than real estate and fixed improvements). The Feds and the States do it essentially the same ... grab the shit then file for forfeiture.

So he's not "ignorant" about it all .. those who make fun of him are!

Since you're in Texas you can look at Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59.

It even puts the burden on the "owner" to get it back!

As for "gun ownership" ... do you really believe there is an accurate figure of how many guns are owned in one particular place? The Government doesn't even know how many people are in this country illegally! How many of them have "guns"?

I found an insane claim about Plano Texas having the highest per capita gun ownership.

It was from a biased website, however, and therefore unreliable. Both sides pull numbers out of the air.

I cannot find a government site that backs it up or mainstream article that is supposed to at least fact check. I can only find by state on fbi and cdc websites.

Can anyone help? Originally Posted by grean

Anyone ever notice this guy is on one side then the other?

When he said seize the guns and then have "due process" he was "spot on" regarding the law of seizing movables (other than real estate and fixed improvements). The Feds and the States do it essentially the same ... grab the shit then file for forfeiture.

So he's not "ignorant" about it all .. those who make fun of him are!

Since you're in Texas you can look at Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59.

It even puts the burden on the "owner" to get it back!

As for "gun ownership" ... do you really believe there is an accurate figure of how many guns are owned in one particular place? The Government doesn't even know how many people are in this country illegally! How many of them have "guns"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases.

In 39 or 20 or 45 whatever number of interactions the police had with Cruz, he was never even once arrested or charged.

Explain on what grounds then they had to SEIZE his assets? There was no suspected crime.

First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases. Originally Posted by grean

If a "mentally disturbed" person is prohibited from having a weapon, that's a crime if the person is found to posses one AND THOUGHT TO BE "mentally disturbed"!

The police take the weapon and then "due process" begins!

Please don't try to tell me how "forfeitures" work or don't work!

Like I said ... Trump was spot on regarding "the law"!

First, the police must suspect said property has a connection to some crime that has been committed in asset forfeiture cases.

In 39 or 20 or 45 whatever number of interactions the police had with Cruz, he was never even once arrested or charged.

Explain on what grounds then they had to SEIZE his assets? There was no suspected crime. Originally Posted by grean

I can't explain why he wasn't charged or his weapons not removed, but I can offer an explanation if what I read was correct ....

.. and I won't get much deeper into the nuances and weeds ....

.. If what I saw and read is correct the man in whose house he was living was a former counter-intelligence officer and active in some "intelligence" capacity with respect to the Government. He was publicly referred to as an "intelligence analyst"!

Local LE know who is who in "the neighborhood" and where they live.

A problem with your analysis is sometimes LE doesn't confiscate and sometimes they do. Sometimes when they don't they have enough evidence to do it, and sometimes when they do they don't have the evidence. To say "what the law is" means nothing. It's reality that matters.

There is a local PD, relatively small, in a nice area around Houston that finances almost 100% of it's special operations with forfeitures, and what is not from forfeitures comes from Government donations on a loaner basis. It can be big business ..

If a "mentally disturbed" person is prohibited from having a weapon, that's a crime if the person is found to posses one AND THOUGHT TO BE "mentally disturbed"!

The police take the weapon and then "due process" begins!

Please don't try to tell me how "forfeitures" work or don't work!

Like I said ... Trump was spot on regarding "the law"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Trump said the very opposite of that.

What you just said would have to go through the courts.
In order to be prohibited, even temporarily , would require a court order first.

Trump said "Take the guns. Then go to the courts"

He is fucking imbecile of epic magnitude.

Actually, I would say Trump is exposing just how ignorant he is. He is a parrot as well changing his argument to satisfy who ever is in front of him. Originally Posted by grean

It's either Trump is ignorant as you say or he is playing a political version of Catch-as-catch-can with these greedy fucking liberals. Although a bit risky Trump is giving them a little bit of slack on this Gun Control agenda they have. When they get a bit cocky and try to add more on the top of the initial deal Trump veto's it leaving them with nothing. Just a possibility.

Jim

Trump said "Take the guns. Then go to the courts"

He is fucking imbecile of epic magnitude. Originally Posted by grean

Actually, you are!

The law IS: "Take the guns. Then go to the courts!"

If you read Chapter 59 you didn't understand it.

That's essentially (not in those specific words) what it says!

So does the Federal statute.

In fact if the "gun" is "evidence" in a case they can't get it back if at all until the case is OVER (including appeals!).

Like I suggested gently to you: Please don't try to lecture me on property forfeitures by LE, in Federal system or Texas.

It's either Trump is ignorant as you say or he is playing a political version of Catch-as-catch-can with these greedy fucking liberals.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I would say neither on this topic. He's right on the law.

The discussion is whether to implement a "mental health" element to the equation so that LE can remove a weapon from the possession of someone who has had a "mental illness" determination in the past. It's a matter of "probable cause" as to the condition. And that is a problem for me.

I've already "gone on record" I oppose a "mental health" condition as being a basis of prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm. And that is primarily because of the vague definition of "mental illness" and the fact that some conditions are controllable by medications or even other therapy. It's too easy for a revengeful person to paint someone with that kind of tattoo.