They’re coming for our guns (really)

Trump is in many respects the worst president we can have

Except for the alternative

Papi, actually Trump is crude but he's done some good things and I do like some of his policies.
His America first attitude, his pressure on China, he had the economy humming before the virus hit, calling out agenda pushing fake news, and I like how he hits back at his detractors. They hit him he hits them back, often harder.
Definitely better than the previous alternative and better than the current alternative.

God forbid you have to defend yourself and your family against criminals in liberal land. YOU ARE FUCKED. I’m worried I may have to flee my state at some point it’s just getting too crazy.

They actually field stripped the McCloskey's handgun which was set up wrong so it wouldn't have fired and fixed it so it would. Dem scumbags hooe that bitch gets disbarred and they win a civil suit.

As w/ many things, the issue of gun ownership is a complex-one, at least to me - complex w.r.t. its pros and cons.

I've never been a gun-owner and have never necessarily been for or against it - on-the-one-hand I feel there are too-many guns in our society leading to too many deaths and "on the surface" I think all guns in the hands of civilians (both law-abiding and criminals) could be mostly-eliminated if there was enough will, and this would perhaps eliminate most of the gun-murders as seems to be the case in most others advanced nations (i.e. I "think" the proliferation of guns in our society makes it in large part easier for criminals to have them) - OTOH I feel America being an open democracy based on little government control, means that perhaps b/c of this openness it would be very hard to keep guns away from criminals and I'm def not-down with criminals being able to get guns and law-abiding citizens not being able to - for me personally not being a gun aficionado, I would prefer no guns in hands of civilians *if* this also meant no guns in the hands of criminals (e.g. AFAIK gun ownership in Mexico and Canada is very strict, as a result it's my understanding w.r.t. Mexico is that a lot of the illegal guns come from the U.S. - so if the U.S. had similar stringent laws, perhaps it would be much much harder for illegal guns to be had - not sure).

"... Papi, actually Trump is crude but he's done some good things and I do like some of his policies ..."

In many ways Trump seems to have been his biggest enemy - seems a lot of the shit he's brought on himself - in some ways he governs like a NY mafia boss - he's picked one senseless fight after another since day one of his administration and has stepped in one pile-of-shit after another primarily w.r.t. many statements he makes instead of just focusing on the big things ; and seems a lot of his actions make it harder for his cabinet to focus on the things that gotta get done.

Still - the alternative that could potentially come will be like nothing we've ever seen in this country - Biden is surrounding himself with the most radical elements of the Democratic party from Sanders, to Cortez, to O'rurke, to Warren, all of whom seem to be in line for powerful cabinet posts or at least lots of influence in a potential new government.

IMO the "anything but Trump" crowd is being shortsighted and basing this election mostly on just not liking Trump and seemingly willing to let America become a shadow of its self - besides not liking Trump, I can't see how Trump has made the life of any American worse than 4 years ago - what right(s) has he taken away from anyone? - pre-Covid, this nation had never been richer and had never been freer - all this would change under Biden's radical government.

The Democrats are overdosing on power - in their minds it's a given they are on their way to getting the presidency, and taking over the senate and having complete control - they are already discussing getting rid of the filibuster once they get power so they can have absolute power - and taking away everyone's guns is one more method of achieving the complete power they are seeking and having total control over government, the economy, and all citizens.

Nobody is coming for my guns. And Trump is the worst president in my lifetime, which is saying something because I remember Nixon.

Yeah no doubt Nixon was a despicable maggot.
But Trump takes the cake killing 140k people by coughing in their faces and giving them the virus right jack.

Gun supporters, you're right. The federal government is currently overreaching.

Deploy to Chicago and Albuquerque to resist government tyranny

@Jackslash.......Nobody is coming for my guns.
Not sure what you are saying here???
1) You don't think the Democrats would ever want to take weapons away from private citizens?
2) Or you won't ever let them take your guns as in "I won't comply"???
3) Who remembers the bumper sticker.........."When they pry it from "My Cold Dead Fingers"
I see a come back for this bumper sticker............

Some people will never forgive Trump for getting rid of backpage and making it more difficult to obtain $60 car dates from underage girls.

I saw the video of the OP incident. People were walking by their house to go down the street to picket the mayor's house.No one was on their property. They were on the sidewalk. Hard to tell on TV but it looked like the couple were 40-50 feet off the sidewalk. The husband just stood there holding an assault rifle. The wife continually pointed her handgun at the people as they passed by. If someone called out asking why she was pointing guns at people she would repoint the gun at whoever spoke.

I own guns. Defend your property 100%. But you don't go pointing a gun at people passing by your house. What's the rule only point the gun at someone you intend to shoot? What if that idiot got startled and accidentally shot someone? She was charged with menacing by firearm which is basically assault. If she stood there with the gun at her side and did not threaten people with it, no news story.

The Democrats know that they can't flat out confiscate firearms, regardless of what Robert Francis O'rourke says. Repealing the 2nd Amendment would require a 2/3 majority vote of BOTH the House AND the Senate. Even if they had that kind of majority in Congress, the next step is that 3/4 of the STATES must ratify it. They know it will never happen.

That said, what they CAN do is limit our ability to USE firearms, and they do that state by state, rule by rule, as small as each step may seem. It cost me over $800 to replace my magazines with "10 round" limited capacity mags about 2 years ago when the law was changed from 15 to 10, and I had to destroy and dispose of all my old ones. If the law ever gets changed back (not likely) I'll have to buy them all over again.

I live in New Jersey. Sadly, one of the most important states in the war for American independence, it has become the most perfect example of modern totalitarianism. The Democrats are big proponents of recreational marijuana, right? (Probably the one and only issue I actually agree with them.) So imagine if you were allowed to sell and/or purchase marijuana, store it, roll it into a joint or pack it into a bong, but the one thing you're NOT allowed to do, under any circumstance, is SMOKE it. That's New Jersey's approach to firearms ownership.

It begins with the fact that under NJ law (and contrary to the Constitution) every single firearm inside the boundaries of the state is deemed ILLEGAL. Yup, even guns carried by police officers are technically illegal. You can obtain the "permission" to sell/purchase/own/carry, only if you meet one of the "exceptions" to the law. Obviously, if you're a police officer, you qualify for an exemption. It's kind of like how everybody has to pay taxes, but if you're a 501 (c)(3) you are exempt from that rule. If you're a woman with a psycho ex-husband who has beaten you up and threatened to kill you numerous times, good luck getting a carry permit. It doesn't exist in NJ unless you're a judge or a politician.

As a regular citizen, you can own a gun, as long as it's not out of compliance with the arbitrary and quite senseless rules. For example, if you own an AR-15, it may NOT have an adjustable shoulder stock to make it more comfortable to shoot. The "obvious" reason for that is because it also has a pistol grip. Duh! That makes it so much more dangerous, right? If there was no pistol grip (never heard of such a thing on an AR) then the adjustable stock would be okay. But a new company (Troy Arms) came out with something called the "Other Gun" which DOES have both a pistol grip AND an adjustable stock. It's allowed in NJ only BECAUSE it has TWO pistol grips, front and rear, instead of regular front hand grips. Here, see for yourself: https://techopsinternational.com/wp-cont… If you remove the front pistol grip, it's illegal.

When I go to the range for target practice, my guns must be secured inside lockable cases with padlocks. The ammo and unloaded magazines must be stored separately. All of it must be in the trunk of my car. If it's in the back seat, or if I forget to click a padlock closed, or if I have one round inside a magazine which was otherwise properly stowed away, or if one loose round is accidentally inside the compartment with the locked gun, I could be subject to a 10 year minimum jail sentence for a "gun crime." In NJ a gun crime means any violation involving a gun. An accidental breach of some administrative rule is the same as if I used the gun to rob a gas station.

Regarding home defense: We have NO Castle Doctrine in NJ. In fact, what we have is called a "duty to retreat." If a gang of thugs breaks down your front door, you're expected to jump out a window or run out your back door, screaming like a little girl. If you discharge a firearm, shit, if you even brandish a firearm, you're getting arrested, even if you don't actually shoot one of the home invaders. It will be up to a jury of your "peers," who are 3/4 liberal Democrats, who weren't at the scene, who have never owned a gun in their lives, to determine whether or not you had "no other choice" but to draw a weapon. They'd prefer it if you had called 911, right before getting shot to death.

If by some miracle you are exonerated, the legal fees are on you bro. Thank God for firearms liability insurance. Oh wait... in New Jersey, that's called "murder insurance" and it's illegal. An insurance firm in Texas found a "loophole" in NJ law, and now offers an "association" that you can belong to for an annual fee. If you're arrested for a "gun crime" then an attorney will represent you for free (with certain limitations). Technically, it's not insurance. I was one of the first to sign up. Of course, legal fees are just the beginning of your problems if you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights in NJ. You'll spend time in jail with the dregs of society, not some white collar jail. After all, you're a felonious gun owner, same as a hardened gang banger. Unlikely as it may be, if you win your case, your life and finances will still be a total mess.

As I understand it, the situation is much the same in NY, CT, MA, MD, VA, CA and HI. Probably a few others too. The US Supreme Court, even with its supposed "conservative" majority, recently refused to hear 10 cases posed by states appealing to protect the 2nd Amendment. If Biden gets in, you'll be defending your home and family with rocks and a baseball bat, against heavily armed thugs just released on $0.00 bail. Even if you live in TX or AZ.

Good luck with that.

The St Louis couple likely freaked out and overreacted - the "protesters" were on private property in a gated-community and thus were trespassing - it's my understanding the couple called the police and the property guards and no one would come - likely the couple overreacted but the protesters had no business being on private property in the first place and that is how this would have been avoided - the "protesters" have been given way too much leeway and they feel they can take over anything they feel like including blocking freeways - I believe I heard that the name of the group that was protesting in front of their house was called something along the lines of "We're coming from you" (although I can't find it on the web right now).

^^ Papi
It's interesting how the video only show a calm, peaceful group parading through the neighborhood, and they use that as proof these gun owners were overreacting. Obviously, after the homeowners drew their guns, there was no disruption from the rioters. I thought that's the reason we have castle doctrine in most states.

@Papi - I thought the private gated community thing was a legit reason as you stated. I googled and at least in NJ (this randomly showed up) protestors ARE ALLOWED to enter gated communities to protest! Incredible!

From the article:

For instance, in Coalition Against the War v. J.M.B. Realty, 138 N.J.326 (1994), the Court held that New Jersey’s free speech protections protected leafleting in shopping malls because shopping malls had become, in essence, the new “downtown.” Similarly, in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 563 (1980), the Court held that Princeton University could not ban leafleting on
its quad. There is some indication from lower courts that these same sorts of free speech rights would apply in the context of gated communities and condominiums.

I read this as if you can get in you can protest. At least in NJ.

More examples of straw men and Red Herrings, nobody is really coming for your guns en masse, it's generally fringe groups that make a ton of noise, but will never succeed,
As far as private property is concerned, property owners can usually, if not absolutely determine what their property can be used for, with the restrictions governed by property zoning codes and land use laws, short answer no one can actually enter a gated community without prior consent, with some exceptions (Law Enforcement and they need a warrant) and protesters are not an exception, unless a permission is granted by the owner, but in reality, that's a pure red herring no-one is allowed to use private property unless it is permitted by the property owner.

James, according to the Chicago tribune, so far this year 1,901 people have been shot in Chicago. Personally I think they should be left alone to suffer under the leaders they elected and support. However that amount of carnage certainly warrants intervention to protect the innocent people that the local leaders refuse to do. It's a completely reasonable action by trump. Even somewhat noble considering all the backlash and negative publicity he will get from the left media.

@yahtzee
The federal government has no business involving itself in the affairs of a state, it's pretty well accepted doctrine in this country, unless the Fed has been asked to intervene by duly elected representatives of the state or city, this smacks of dictatorship ala Vladmir Putin, or Fidel Castro, even Hugo Chavez.
Unless Mr Trump receives a clear invitation, from a recognized authority, he needs to stay out of states internal affairs, any other course of action will be found to violate the Constitution, (I believe the Posse Comitatus act) and prior precedent

When states fail, Feds step in. The fact it happens in Democrat run cities is because Democrats are failures. Minneapolis asked for 500 million for their riots. Maybe Portland can stop accepting any Federal funds and we can just let the garbage their burn the fucking place down. As long as those assholes bear the burden its fine. Hopefully the weather will get hotter and Democrats in the cities will kill even more of each other.

25, why argue with me, I already stated that I thought those cities should be left alone.

However, I don't think trying to prevent a federal building from being destroyed and wanting to stop a tidal wave of gang violence makes Trump's actions comparable to Castro and company.

What about Eisenhower's use of the national guard and 101st airborne in the fifties? Dictator too?

Not arguing that point, my feeling, and it's been borne out by not using these federal armed police to guard specific buildings or parks but rather to conduct pro active round-ups they do not have local policing authority, and in the past this has led to State LEO's having armed confrontations with federal troops. The State of Oregon has a particular history if you remember the standoff at the Wildlife Refuge in 2014, that is what this stage is being set for, and Trump being so completely unaware of the history of this is going to set in play forces which he will not be able to control.
Here is a link to what I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_stan…

Eisenhower's use of the Guard in the fifties bears no relationship to the matter at hand, remember there was a supreme court ruling on school desegregation at that time, this is nothing more than the President attempting to overwhelm local authorities and impose his particular political point of view on a dissenting municipality.

50 nights of violence and destruction by the animals in Portland and the failure of the useless progressives to do their job makes it a federal issue. If the numb nuts called progressives knew how do do anything other than bitch, whine and commit crimes, the Feds wouldn't be needed. Like to see some of the protesters with lasers shot.

As a taxpayer it sickens me when cities ask for relief funds because the leader was too big off a pussy to draw a line in the sand.

Unless the left packs SCOTUS with leftist Justices, they really can't do a lot. Of course a left enough court could "rewrite" the US Constitution via "interpretation".

^ Wow we have a real Supreme Court scholar in our midst

It won't take much to turn the Supreme Court, Trump appointed judges have already sided with the left a couple times. We urgently need to keep the left from gaining control in Nov.

^ I don't think they so much sided with the left, as asserted their Independence, as they are required, you guys for being such a bunch of self styled experts really know less than nothing about the constitution.
I think you need to go back to school and take a civics class, y'all obviously missed the one about the three equally empowered branches of government.

Worse than that, OSU, the left are determined to permanently destroy the supreme court by expanding it to 12-15 judges, ensuring illegal leftist judicial activism for decades.

The only way to preserve our nation is to ensure that every democrat hack running in Nov loses.

If the left expands it to 12-15 justices, what's to stop the right from expanding it to 16-20? The worm always turns.

The republican party has been speaking against the expansion of the court. The democrat party has been openly promoting the idea. It's that simple. Regardless of what may or may not possibly maybe could happen in a couple of decades, Biden's puppet masters have already told us what they intend to have him do if elected in a few months.

twentyfive,
"...Wow we have a real Supreme Court scholar in our midst"
ANYONE compared to you would be a scholar in ANY field!
Let me take that back. You are the Einstein of stupid!

^ Thank you coming from a moron like yourself that’s quite a compliment

My bad 25, I should have checked with you before I comment about anything to make sure it's 100% accurate from your perspective. After all as you've constantly proclaimed here you know everything about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything, unless they happen to see it your way. You're so smart.
Tell us again how smart you are.
Nevermind, here you are... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUiw6kMH…

^ And your point Is ???

I made my point. I'm not looking for a fight with you but if you start with offhanded insults and taking little snide shots at me you're going to get them back. You have a history of doing it with others and escalating it over a period of time. I'm willing to let you be you as long as it's not directed at me.

I didn't instigate any fight you seem to insulted about something, not particularly sure what it is, but my history of insults is generally aimed at folks that take potshots at me unprovoked, I have never had a beef with you, and you are well aware I have no qualms about mixing it up if the situation calls for it, and you also know I have no problem disagreeing civilly with those that are civil with me. If you care to explain what you are bent out of shape about please do so.

Goldmonger, we must be watching completely different video of the incident. What I’ve seen shows protesters entering onto private property, through gates, off the street they were marching on. The couple with the long gun and pistol are clearly standing on the landing in front of the stairs to their front door. I agree that the lady points her pistol in the direction of protesters as she yells at them which is definitely inappropriate and dangerous handling of a firearm.

^ it's my understanding the lady's gun was inoperable and they (she and her husband) knew that - which makes me think as I previously mentioned that they freaked out at people busting into their private community and thought they needed to act proactively and try to scare them off.

They had also spent years and tons of $$$ rehabilitating their house and might've been scared their home might be targeted?

Why the hell do people dislike Trump so damn much? Trump is fucking awesome.

Trump literally turned the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party in all but name.

TheOSU,
"... you start with offhanded insults and taking little snide shots at me you're going to get them back. You have a history of doing it..."

He is an expert at that. EXPERT = X, an unknown, spurt, a drip under pressure, an unknown drip under pressure!! Likely lives in his mother's attic. Few basements in Florida.

Hey MR_O is that your name or is it a symbol of who you really are.
You bore me so fuck off, and go troll someone else, you don't have the intellect to play the dozens with me.

twentyfive,
"...you don't have the intellect to play the dozens with me."

Correct, since you are in the relatively elite 1.9% of the Extremely Low IQ Classifications used in Educational circles, you have me there.

Well you don't think the liberals are going to blame their beloved thugs do you?

@_o
Stupid as I may be, on my stupidest day, I’m still smarter than you ever have been, or ever will be.

BLACK LIVES MATTER
AUSTIN PROTEST ENDS IN GUNFIRE WITH ONE DEAD

"...The victim, identified as Garrett Foster, reportedly was protesting, carrying a rifle and approached the shooter's car, and that's when he was struck ..."

https://www.tmz.com/2020/07/26/austin-sh…

^ Downtown Austin area was hoodville on weekend nights when I left there three years ago. Given recent events this is totally expected, and I believe their were a few other incidents as well. Austin is going to end up being the next Portland.

twentyfive,

"Stupid as I may be, on my stupidest day, I’m still smarter than you ever have been, or ever will be."

That the best you got? A 3 year old could do better!

Whats next, sticks and stones???

@Bubba - The report i saw said the gate was open, but later someone damaged the open gate. Hoodlums. There is a difference between a private street (which is private community or subdivision property) and the homeowner's actual property. Yes ,people were on a private street (where surprisingly courts have said you are allowed to protest, but how do you get in there?)

The couple has a right to defend their own home, but less of a right to defend the subdivision's street. Are you saying protestors were up in their front yard or just on the street? I do not know this, but there may also be a distinction between protecting your yard and your actual house.

The rule is simple: shoot them and drag the lifeless body into your house.

Now if we could just get rid of the ATF.

If the Dems take power it's a no-brainer that they will also move to defund the military b/c having a large powerful military "is a sign of aggression" and after-all America *is* "an evil empire" - defunding the military would free up billions for their Marxist utopia.

"The rule is simple: shoot them and drag the lifeless body into your house."

Lol, that was before forensics and ubiquitous cameras.

Reminds me of the town bully McElroy, in Missouri in the 1980's. Committed so many crimes that the town met with the sheriff, who suggested a "neighborhood watch", told them not to confront him and then drove out of town. McElroy was shot dead in front of 46 witnesses, who saw nothing at all. Shot with 2 guns too lol.