|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 27, 2018 10:33:24 GMT -5
While I agree that some shooters are cowards, let's not forget those that do not intend to survive the incident. Many shooters intend to die. Have you ever heard of suicide by cop? I suppose you're now willing to add suicide by teacher into the vernacular as well. 'Suicide by Teacher'......LOL I don't disagree with your comments. I agree, narrowly defining shooters doesn't apply to all cases.
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Feb 28, 2018 15:24:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 28, 2018 17:07:07 GMT -5
Very strange incident. The article fails to say if he was approved to have a firearm on campus, I'm guessing not.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 2, 2018 8:42:38 GMT -5
Looks like Trump is going to start his own assault on the 2nd amendment. Funny, he's essentially proposing to do what he accused Hillary of planning to do during the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 9:27:55 GMT -5
Looks like Trump is going to start his own assault on the 2nd amendment. Funny, he's essentially proposing to do what he accused Hillary of planning to do during the campaign. Gun Grabbing Dems are laying a trap for Trump. He has put forth some reasonable measures (although I personally don't agree with raising the age, but that is a whole other debate). The dems will try to attach other gun control measures to any of Trump's proposals that work their way through congress. He will be forced to withdraw support for all of it because of his base (rightly so) and nothing will get done. And that will be the dems 2018 and 2020 campaign issue "Trump did nothing". The dems don't want anything done, they just want a reason to stop the re-election of Trump, just like the immigration issue.
|
|
|
Post by clb6110 on Mar 2, 2018 9:38:30 GMT -5
^^ I was in DC this past week and met with 7 different Ohio congressmen (1 congresslady) and I can tell you that very little will get done on any front in DC for the net few years. I've done the DC lobbing deal a few times in my life and I've never seen Capitol Hill so polarized.I did see the Rev.Billy Graham carried into the Capitol tho.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 9:57:30 GMT -5
Actually, I think very significant measures will get passed into law this time. Bump stock ban should have been passed a year ago, large capacity magazine ban, age 21 for purchase of guns will get passed and any ban on the sale of AR-15's is up for debate. I truly think law makers on Capitol Hill have found some common ground this time and some measures will get passed and signed by the President. What doesn't get accomplished on the Federal level, will be addressed on a state by state level, especially here in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 10:49:58 GMT -5
Actually, I think very significant measures will get passed into law this time. Bump stock ban should have been passed a year ago, large capacity magazine ban, age 21 for purchase of guns will get passed and any ban on the sale of AR-15's is up for debate.I truly think law makers on Capitol Hill have found some common ground this time and some measures will get passed and signed by the President. What doesn't get accomplished on the Federal level, will be addressed on a state by state level, especially here in Florida. Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? The Dems WANT the conservative Republicans to stand in the way. Their top priority is a campaign issue. As for the 21 age issue, are we suddenly going to declare an entire class of citizens (18-19-20yrs.) no longer able to be trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough to purchase a long arm, because of one sick deranged 19 year old? If so, better start thinking of taking their driver licenses away. Pretty sure 19 year olds driving cars kill more than the shooter at parkland did. How about voting? If they aren't trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough, I don't want them helping pick my governmental leaders. How many of even the strongest anti-gun politicians were stumping for this measure 6 months ago?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 11:14:35 GMT -5
Actually, I think very significant measures will get passed into law this time. Bump stock ban should have been passed a year ago, large capacity magazine ban, age 21 for purchase of guns will get passed and any ban on the sale of AR-15's is up for debate.I truly think law makers on Capitol Hill have found some common ground this time and some measures will get passed and signed by the President. What doesn't get accomplished on the Federal level, will be addressed on a state by state level, especially here in Florida. Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? The Dems WANT the conservative Republicans to stand in the way. Their top priority is a campaign issue. As for the 21 age issue, are we suddenly going to declare an entire class of citizens (18-19-20yrs.) no longer able to be trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough to purchase a long arm, because of one sick deranged 19 year old? If so, better start thinking of taking their driver licenses away. Pretty sure 19 year olds driving cars kill more than the shooter at parkland did. How about voting? If they aren't trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough, I don't want them helping pick my governmental leaders. How many of even the strongest anti-gun politicians were stumping for this measure 6 months ago? I have several semi-automatic rifles in my limited collection and none of them are assault style rifles, nor do they accept a clip. Interpretation of what constitutes an assault rifle is an emotional topic for debate. I have no use for such a weapon and my approach is one of not taking any sides of the argument, let the lawmakers argue it out. I agree, there are some from the radical left, that are proposing banning all semi-automatic rifles....which is utterly ridiculous. Raising the age is also not one I am too passionate about either and I don't disagree with all of your very valid points. I have several grandsons that are avid hunters, very responsible and sensible young men and all have selected and purchased their own rifles with their own money they earned from working part time jobs. My son-in-law is a responsible outdoorsman and has taught them well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 11:33:39 GMT -5
Actually, I think very significant measures will get passed into law this time. Bump stock ban should have been passed a year ago, large capacity magazine ban, age 21 for purchase of guns will get passed and any ban on the sale of AR-15's is up for debate.I truly think law makers on Capitol Hill have found some common ground this time and some measures will get passed and signed by the President. What doesn't get accomplished on the Federal level, will be addressed on a state by state level, especially here in Florida. Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? No, no you don't. It's very easy to make language that bans only the guns designed for killing humans. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that are centerfire, or FPS > whatever, etc.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 2, 2018 12:20:02 GMT -5
Actually, I think very significant measures will get passed into law this time. Bump stock ban should have been passed a year ago, large capacity magazine ban, age 21 for purchase of guns will get passed and any ban on the sale of AR-15's is up for debate.I truly think law makers on Capitol Hill have found some common ground this time and some measures will get passed and signed by the President. What doesn't get accomplished on the Federal level, will be addressed on a state by state level, especially here in Florida. Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? The Dems WANT the conservative Republicans to stand in the way. Their top priority is a campaign issue. As for the 21 age issue, are we suddenly going to declare an entire class of citizens (18-19-20yrs.) no longer able to be trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough to purchase a long arm, because of one sick deranged 19 year old? If so, better start thinking of taking their driver licenses away. Pretty sure 19 year olds driving cars kill more than the shooter at parkland did. How about voting? If they aren't trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough, I don't want them helping pick my governmental leaders. How many of even the strongest anti-gun politicians were stumping for this measure 6 months ago? Help me out here. You don't trust them with to buy a beer but you trust them to buy a gun. You can still take the boy out hunting with you they just can't BUY the gun. It's all semantics designed to make people feel like something was done that accomplishes nothing.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 12:37:03 GMT -5
Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? The Dems WANT the conservative Republicans to stand in the way. Their top priority is a campaign issue. As for the 21 age issue, are we suddenly going to declare an entire class of citizens (18-19-20yrs.) no longer able to be trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough to purchase a long arm, because of one sick deranged 19 year old? If so, better start thinking of taking their driver licenses away. Pretty sure 19 year olds driving cars kill more than the shooter at parkland did. How about voting? If they aren't trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough, I don't want them helping pick my governmental leaders. How many of even the strongest anti-gun politicians were stumping for this measure 6 months ago? Help me out here. You don't trust them with to buy a beer but you trust them to buy a gun. You can still take the boy out hunting with you they just can't BUY the gun. It's all semantics designed to make people feel like something was done that accomplishes nothing. I see a 21 age restriction as merely a minor inconvenience. If a young person is an avid sportsman and wishes to purchase a firearm, a parent or guardian will make that purchase. The one thing that could be a strong positive, it would bring a parent or guardian into the process and be the ultimate decision maker, if there were any issues involved. Personally, I don't see this having much affect positive or negative, on the spector of school violence. This falls in the realm of 'feel good' legislation.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 2, 2018 12:41:41 GMT -5
Isn't that what I just said?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 12:43:02 GMT -5
Isn't that what I just said? Basically.....yes.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 2, 2018 12:45:00 GMT -5
Cool, just wondering because that was actually the point I was trying to get across.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 13:27:14 GMT -5
Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? The Dems WANT the conservative Republicans to stand in the way. Their top priority is a campaign issue. As for the 21 age issue, are we suddenly going to declare an entire class of citizens (18-19-20yrs.) no longer able to be trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough to purchase a long arm, because of one sick deranged 19 year old? If so, better start thinking of taking their driver licenses away. Pretty sure 19 year olds driving cars kill more than the shooter at parkland did. How about voting? If they aren't trusted, competent, experienced, or mature enough, I don't want them helping pick my governmental leaders. How many of even the strongest anti-gun politicians were stumping for this measure 6 months ago? Help me out here. You don't trust them with to buy a beer but you trust them to buy a gun. You can still take the boy out hunting with you they just can't BUY the gun. It's all semantics designed to make people feel like something was done that accomplishes nothing. Never said anything about beer, but you help make my point. There should be a clear line between juvenile/adult. Make it either 18 or 21 or in between for all things.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 13:30:50 GMT -5
Help me out here. You don't trust them with to buy a beer but you trust them to buy a gun. You can still take the boy out hunting with you they just can't BUY the gun. It's all semantics designed to make people feel like something was done that accomplishes nothing. I see a 21 age restriction as merely a minor inconvenience. If a young person is an avid sportsman and wishes to purchase a firearm, a parent or guardian will make that purchase. The one thing that could be a strong positive, it would bring a parent or guardian into the process and be the ultimate decision maker, if there were any issues involved. Personally, I don't see this having much affect positive or negative, on the spector of school violence. This falls in the realm of 'feel good' legislation.Exactly, so why take away the rights of hundreds of thousands for the actions of one? A slippery slope as far as constitutional rights goes.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 14:12:10 GMT -5
Any bill that has AR-15 ban attached to will not pass. This is what the gun grabbers will try to do. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. To ban an AR-15 you have to ban semi-automatics. My .22 Ruger squirrel gun is a semi-automatic. Are you going to call it an assault weapon and ban it too? No, no you don't. It's very easy to make language that bans only the guns designed for killing humans. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that are centerfire, or FPS > whatever, etc. So are you saying guns not designed for killing humans are OK? The AR-15 was designed for civilian use. It is not a fully automatic weapon like the REAL assault weapons militaries use. It is against the law for civilians to kill people. Don't try to take away my rights because a very small percentage of people use them for criminal purposes. Do I have to list all of the things that both you and I have or want that a very small percentage of people use for criminal purposes? I don't have the time, and that should not be the standard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 14:23:24 GMT -5
No, no you don't. It's very easy to make language that bans only the guns designed for killing humans. Ban all semi-automatic rifles that are centerfire, or FPS > whatever, etc. So are you saying guns not designed for killing humans are OK? The AR-15 was designed for civilian use. It is not a fully automatic weapon like the REAL assault weapons militaries use. It is against the law for civilians to kill people. Don't try to take away my rights because a very small percentage of people use them for criminal purposes. What is a civilian supposed to do with an AR-15? I used to have one, it sat in my safe and was fun to shoot. I never once took it deer hunting. I lost mine when my house burned down, I don't plan on replacing it and would gladly give up the "right" to buy another as I am personally tired of seeing the damage they can do and see no value of having them around.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 14:28:56 GMT -5
So are you saying guns not designed for killing humans are OK? The AR-15 was designed for civilian use. It is not a fully automatic weapon like the REAL assault weapons militaries use. It is against the law for civilians to kill people. Don't try to take away my rights because a very small percentage of people use them for criminal purposes. What is a civilian supposed to do with an AR-15? I used to have one, it sat in my safe and was fun to shoot. I never once took it deer hunting. I lost mine when my house burned down, I don't plan on replacing it and would gladly give up the "right" to buy another as I am personally tired of seeing the damage they can do and see no value of having them around. Mine is fun to shoot also. I've used it for target, coyotes, and ground hogs. You can do as you wish with yours, let me keep mine. I've never shot up a school.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 15:31:26 GMT -5
What is a civilian supposed to do with an AR-15? I used to have one, it sat in my safe and was fun to shoot. I never once took it deer hunting. I lost mine when my house burned down, I don't plan on replacing it and would gladly give up the "right" to buy another as I am personally tired of seeing the damage they can do and see no value of having them around. Mine is fun to shoot also. I've used it for target, coyotes, and ground hogs. You can do as you wish with yours, let me keep mine. I've never shot up a school. I think what it comes down to for me, and every voter can make up his or her own mind, is this: school shootings are going to continue. When these shootings happen with semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines, the death tolls are significantly higher. That is the reason against semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines. The reason for them, is that they are fun to shoot. The cons clearly outweigh the pros for me.
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Mar 2, 2018 15:53:54 GMT -5
Sounds like most people (on this thread) have been on the firing end of an AR-15. Fortunately, I'm guessing most haven't been on the receiving end. That tends to change perspective, in my opinion. I don't care what you do with your guns. Shoot all the ground hogs you want. But don't tell me that someone is coming to confiscate them. No offense, but that's such a tired line. I thought Obama was coming to get them? You know it's actually the current POTUS who just said, during a nationally televised Congressional meeting no less, that we should suspend due process and take your guns away before you're tried. That's no Leftist conspiracy or DEM secret-strategy. That's the MAGA guy talking all by himself - to the horror of his $30 million dollar backers (NRA) and most with an 'R' next to their name. I think Dana Loesch stop live-tweeting the event at that point because she lost consciousness.
In the meantime, please report back when they come knocking to take them. I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 17:05:36 GMT -5
So are you saying guns not designed for killing humans are OK? The AR-15 was designed for civilian use. It is not a fully automatic weapon like the REAL assault weapons militaries use. It is against the law for civilians to kill people. Don't try to take away my rights because a very small percentage of people use them for criminal purposes. What is a civilian supposed to do with an AR-15? I used to have one, it sat in my safe and was fun to shoot. I never once took it deer hunting. I lost mine when my house burned down, I don't plan on replacing it and would gladly give up the "right" to buy another as I am personally tired of seeing the damage they can do and see no value of having them around. Very well stated. It blows my mind that bump stocks are still legal....they quickly turn AR-15's into mass killing devices. Even if we do the right thing and outlaw them, think there won't be a black market that ensures their continued availability?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 17:20:16 GMT -5
What is a civilian supposed to do with an AR-15? I used to have one, it sat in my safe and was fun to shoot. I never once took it deer hunting. I lost mine when my house burned down, I don't plan on replacing it and would gladly give up the "right" to buy another as I am personally tired of seeing the damage they can do and see no value of having them around. Very well stated. It blows my mind that bump stocks are still legal....they quickly turn AR-15's into mass killing devices. Even if we do the right thing and outlaw them, think there won't be a black market that ensures their continued availability? Absolutely there will be a black market that supplies them. I don't propose going door to door and collecting them, and heck, I'd even do what was done in California that if you already own one, you can register it and continue to own it (but it cannot be transferred/sold). In California there are still many felons arrested with AR-15s and high capacity magazines, organized crime is well armed. But it would prevent an upset 18 year old from walking into a gun shop and legally buying a gun capable of killing a large number of people in a short amount of time.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 17:26:54 GMT -5
Sounds like most people (on this thread) have been on the firing end of an AR-15. Fortunately, I'm guessing most haven't been on the receiving end. That tends to change perspective, in my opinion. I don't care what you do with your guns. Shoot all the ground hogs you want. But don't tell me that someone is coming to confiscate them. No offense, but that's such a tired line. I thought Obama was coming to get them? You know it's actually the current POTUS who just said, during a nationally televised Congressional meeting no less, that we should suspend due process and take your guns away before you're tried. That's no Leftist conspiracy or DEM secret-strategy. That's the MAGA guy talking all by himself - to the horror of his $30 million dollar backers (NRA) and most with an 'R' next to their name. I think Dana Loesch stop live-tweeting the event at that point because she lost consciousness. In the meantime, please report back when they come knocking to take them. I won't hold my breath. Good comments...... I think Trump did a good job of explaining the reasoning, when a problem is reported and an investigation is warranted, it makes no sense at all to go through the agonizing, legal wrangling and 'due process' that could take months. Confiscate the weapons immediately to eliminate the potential threat to public safety and if the suspect is cleared by the courts, then return them. Like he mentioned, the 19 year old had (24 recordible incidences with the sheriffs department), but the sheriff was found out to be not telling the entire truth, the actual incidences were almost double that amount. We need to be pro-active on all fronts, to prevent another tragedy like Parkland MSD.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 17:32:39 GMT -5
Very well stated. It blows my mind that bump stocks are still legal....they quickly turn AR-15's into mass killing devices. Even if we do the right thing and outlaw them, think there won't be a black market that ensures their continued availability? Absolutely there will be a black market that supplies them. I don't propose going door to door and collecting them, and heck, I'd even do what was done in California that if you already own one, you can register it and continue to own it (but it cannot be transferred/sold). In California there are still many felons arrested with AR-15s and high capacity magazines, organized crime is well armed. But it would prevent an upset 18 year old from walking into a gun shop and legally buying a gun capable of killing a large number of people in a short amount of time. The only thing I am so skeptical of 'registration' is, once they have you registered, then come the registration 'fees', that may start out as a one time thing, but some politician or bureaucrat will get the brilliant idea to make it yearly. Of course, like all 'fees', they are subject to increases. In liberal states especially, that would most likely be abused and they would resort to exhorbitant increases, to serve as another form of gun control. If you can't afford their registration fees, then you get rid of the gun....right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 17:50:17 GMT -5
Absolutely there will be a black market that supplies them. I don't propose going door to door and collecting them, and heck, I'd even do what was done in California that if you already own one, you can register it and continue to own it (but it cannot be transferred/sold). In California there are still many felons arrested with AR-15s and high capacity magazines, organized crime is well armed. But it would prevent an upset 18 year old from walking into a gun shop and legally buying a gun capable of killing a large number of people in a short amount of time. The only thing I am so skeptical of 'registration' is, once they have you registered, then come the registration 'fees', that may start out as a one time thing, but some politician or bureaucrat will get the brilliant idea to make it yearly. Of course, like all 'fees', they are subject to increases. In liberal states especially, that would most likely be abused and they would resort to exhorbitant increases, to serve as another form of gun control. If you can't afford their registration fees, then you get rid of the gun....right? They're too busy taxing marijuana here.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Mar 2, 2018 18:22:19 GMT -5
Sounds like most people (on this thread) have been on the firing end of an AR-15. Fortunately, I'm guessing most haven't been on the receiving end. That tends to change perspective, in my opinion. I don't care what you do with your guns. Shoot all the ground hogs you want. But don't tell me that someone is coming to confiscate them. No offense, but that's such a tired line. I thought Obama was coming to get them? You know it's actually the current POTUS who just said, during a nationally televised Congressional meeting no less, that we should suspend due process and take your guns away before you're tried. That's no Leftist conspiracy or DEM secret-strategy. That's the MAGA guy talking all by himself - to the horror of his $30 million dollar backers (NRA) and most with an 'R' next to their name. I think Dana Loesch stop live-tweeting the event at that point because she lost consciousness. In the meantime, please report back when they come knocking to take them. I won't hold my breath. Good comments...... I think Trump did a good job of explaining the reasoning, when a problem is reported and an investigation is warranted, it makes no sense at all to go through the agonizing, legal wrangling and 'due process' that could take months. Confiscate the weapons immediately to eliminate the potential threat to public safety and if the suspect is cleared by the courts, then return them. Like he mentioned, the 19 year old had (24 recordible incidences with the sheriffs department), but the sheriff was found out to be not telling the entire truth, the actual incidences were almost double that amount. We need to be pro-active on all fronts, to prevent another tragedy like Parkland MSD. What you're talking about is suspending the 5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Good grief. If you're going to do that, might as well suspend the first one, then all the rest will be meaningless. Then the government could do whatever it wanted to "solve" all the problems. Of course, eventually, "We the people" would have to fight another Revolutionary War. Tough to do since the second amendment and all of the people's guns will be gone. Seriously, I think Trump misspoke (as he's done before) and will walk that back. The lawyers and ACLU won't go near "infringing" on the 5th.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Mar 2, 2018 19:26:12 GMT -5
I don't think that he misspoke. When he was given the chances to walk it back he repeated it.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Mar 2, 2018 20:51:02 GMT -5
Good comments...... I think Trump did a good job of explaining the reasoning, when a problem is reported and an investigation is warranted, it makes no sense at all to go through the agonizing, legal wrangling and 'due process' that could take months. Confiscate the weapons immediately to eliminate the potential threat to public safety and if the suspect is cleared by the courts, then return them. Like he mentioned, the 19 year old had (24 recordible incidences with the sheriffs department), but the sheriff was found out to be not telling the entire truth, the actual incidences were almost double that amount. We need to be pro-active on all fronts, to prevent another tragedy like Parkland MSD. What you're talking about is suspending the 5th amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Good grief. If you're going to do that, might as well suspend the first one, then all the rest will be meaningless. Then the government could do whatever it wanted to "solve" all the problems. Of course, eventually, "We the people" would have to fight another Revolutionary War. Tough to do since the second amendment and all of the people's guns will be gone. Seriously, I think Trump misspoke (as he's done before) and will walk that back. The lawyers and ACLU won't go near "infringing" on the 5th. No, I think Donald knew exactly what he was conveying and I think he had a full understanding of it's legal viability. If retaining weapons that are a potential hazard to the public is suspending the 5th amendment, then revoking one's driving privileges, prior to an in court verdict on a DUI charge, is suspending the 5th amendment.
|
|