Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ess-second

Certainly one of the potentially good things about Trump - he'll say stuff no one would ever have said before. If you need to break a paradigm, he could do it. On the other hand, he's also crazy and often uninformed, so that could be a negative.

Two amendments with one stone. Impressive.

Like I said all last year hes always been a liberal, they should love the guy.

Well shit-ass, time to cruise Breitbart for awhile for the lulz

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Like I said all last year hes always been a liberal, they should love the guy.

..and all this time you thought it was Obama who was going to take your guns.

Meanwhile the party of law and order and the FBI are just ruining each other like Gandalf and the Balrog...I'm telling ya, AJIZZ, this in an old hippies wet dream - if only that Nancy-boy Hoover could be around to watch the erosion...

Nobody is taking my guns so I don't care....... Good God you are an idiot

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It's pretty simple. The guy is an idiot. It's weird. He did go to Penn. But, I mean, when you watch him day to day he is just an absolute imbecile. He has absolutely no clue about anything.

This is a very dark time for the United States.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Like I said all last year hes always been a liberal, they should love the guy.

He's going to reclassify semi-auto rifles with machine guns. Probably improve the nation's marksmanship on average

Actually, this is blown WAY out of proportion by conservatives. I'll give you two examples. One - child custody/divorce proceedings - there is little to no due process involved there. I have a man that works for me, his "baby mama" makes one salacious, 100% untrue comment/accusation & boom - can't see his daughter for over 6 months & still about a year later can't have unsupervised visitation. The second is the no fly list - no process there either.

On the other hand you have to laugh at liberals. They applaud Dick's & Walmart's announcements yesterday on changing gun sales & herald their move. But a Christian bakery won't make a cake for a gay wedding & all hell breaks loose.

This country will never be great until we stop playing "sides".

On a side note, I thought yesterday was one of Trump's best days as a President & it's why I voted for him & had a lot of hope for him in the primaries. Telling Pat Toomey, who is a scum of the earth senator from my own home state that he's afraid of the NRA was one helluva grenade he threw in his lap. We elect people to get things done, yet they get very little done at all.

bluehenbillk wrote:Actually, this is blown WAY out of proportion by conservatives. I'll give you two examples. One - child custody/divorce proceedings - there is little to no due process involved there. I have a man that works for me, his "baby mama" makes one salacious, 100% untrue comment/accusation & boom - can't see his daughter for over 6 months & still about a year later can't have unsupervised visitation. The second is the no fly list - no process there either.

On the other hand you have to laugh at liberals. They applaud Dick's & Walmart's announcements yesterday on changing gun sales & herald their move. But a Christian bakery won't make a cake for a gay wedding & all hell breaks loose.

This country will never be great until we stop playing "sides".

On a side note, I thought yesterday was one of Trump's best days as a President & it's why I voted for him & had a lot of hope for him in the primaries. Telling Pat Toomey, who is a scum of the earth senator from my own home state that he's afraid of the NRA was one helluva grenade he threw in his lap. We elect people to get things done, yet they get very little done at all.

Also domestic spying and storage of metadata.

bluehenbillk wrote:Actually, this is blown WAY out of proportion by conservatives. I'll give you two examples. One - child custody/divorce proceedings - there is little to no due process involved there. I have a man that works for me, his "baby mama" makes one salacious, 100% untrue comment/accusation & boom - can't see his daughter for over 6 months & still about a year later can't have unsupervised visitation. The second is the no fly list - no process there either.

On the other hand you have to laugh at liberals. They applaud Dick's & Walmart's announcements yesterday on changing gun sales & herald their move. But a Christian bakery won't make a cake for a gay wedding & all hell breaks loose.

This country will never be great until we stop playing "sides".

On a side note, I thought yesterday was one of Trump's best days as a President & it's why I voted for him & had a lot of hope for him in the primaries. Telling Pat Toomey, who is a scum of the earth senator from my own home state that he's afraid of the NRA was one helluva grenade he threw in his lap. We elect people to get things done, yet they get very little done at all.

Child custody is a bit different from a specifically identified right guaranteed by the Constitution. But a family court injunction, as asinine as it is, is at least a fleeting whiff of due process

Using a no fly list is not - because as Ive said before - you get on the no fly list because somebody like me clicks a mouse - that is not due process... it is government fiat

As for Dicks and Walmart - if they choose not to sell "assault" weapons at all (whatever THAT is ... I can assault you with a .22) then thats fine- don't sell them

If they decide to only sell them to people 21 and over, they will lose that inevitable court battle... in fact I am sure the more savvy ambulance chasers already have 20 year olds lined up to be denied a gun at Wal Mart

You're right on this- When SCOTUS smacks that one down you had better believe the wedding cake mafia will cry foul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Actually, this is blown WAY out of proportion by conservatives. I'll give you two examples. One - child custody/divorce proceedings - there is little to no due process involved there. I have a man that works for me, his "baby mama" makes one salacious, 100% untrue comment/accusation & boom - can't see his daughter for over 6 months & still about a year later can't have unsupervised visitation. The second is the no fly list - no process there either.

On the other hand you have to laugh at liberals. They applaud Dick's & Walmart's announcements yesterday on changing gun sales & herald their move. But a Christian bakery won't make a cake for a gay wedding & all hell breaks loose.

This country will never be great until we stop playing "sides".

On a side note, I thought yesterday was one of Trump's best days as a President & it's why I voted for him & had a lot of hope for him in the primaries. Telling Pat Toomey, who is a scum of the earth senator from my own home state that he's afraid of the NRA was one helluva grenade he threw in his lap. We elect people to get things done, yet they get very little done at all.

Child custody is a bit different from a specifically identified right guaranteed by the Constitution. But a family court injunction, as asinine as it is, is at least a fleeting whiff of due process

Using a no fly list is not - because as Ive said before - you get on the no fly list because somebody like me clicks a mouse - that is not due process... it is government fiat

As for Dicks and Walmart - if they choose not to sell "assault" weapons at all (whatever THAT is ... I can assault you with a .22) then thats fine- don't sell them

If they decide to only sell them to people 21 and over, they will lose that inevitable court battle... in fact I am sure the more savvy ambulance chasers already have 20 year olds lined up to be denied a gun at Wal Mart

You're right on this- When SCOTUS smacks that one down you had better believe the wedding cake mafia will cry foul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Child custody is a bit different from a specifically identified right guaranteed by the Constitution. But a family court injunction, as asinine as it is, is at least a fleeting whiff of due process

Using a no fly list is not - because as Ive said before - you get on the no fly list because somebody like me clicks a mouse - that is not due process... it is government fiat

As for Dicks and Walmart - if they choose not to sell "assault" weapons at all (whatever THAT is ... I can assault you with a .22) then thats fine- don't sell them

If they decide to only sell them to people 21 and over, they will lose that inevitable court battle... in fact I am sure the more savvy ambulance chasers already have 20 year olds lined up to be denied a gun at Wal Mart

You're right on this- When SCOTUS smacks that one down you had better believe the wedding cake mafia will cry foul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

That same sign today reads "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, unless you're gay"

Wait... Spandos was right?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Child custody is a bit different from a specifically identified right guaranteed by the Constitution. But a family court injunction, as asinine as it is, is at least a fleeting whiff of due process

Using a no fly list is not - because as Ive said before - you get on the no fly list because somebody like me clicks a mouse - that is not due process... it is government fiat

As for Dicks and Walmart - if they choose not to sell "assault" weapons at all (whatever THAT is ... I can assault you with a .22) then thats fine- don't sell them

If they decide to only sell them to people 21 and over, they will lose that inevitable court battle... in fact I am sure the more savvy ambulance chasers already have 20 year olds lined up to be denied a gun at Wal Mart

You're right on this- When SCOTUS smacks that one down you had better believe the wedding cake mafia will cry foul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

But it's a good point - you can't refuse to sell to people because they're Black, so no matter what the sign says you don't have that right (heck, dawg, you're starting to sound like JSO).

It is interesting, I'm sure both Walmart and Dick's could be sued if all they do is set an age limit that's not tied to an actual law. Of course, they could just decide not to sell guns altogether, and that would be fine. Restricting ages, however noble, does seem to run afoul of the law.

With that said, I'm all in favor of making the ages for long guns and handguns the same anyway. Let's make it 21 across the board at the federal level and then the question of retailers being sued goes away.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Child custody is a bit different from a specifically identified right guaranteed by the Constitution. But a family court injunction, as asinine as it is, is at least a fleeting whiff of due process

Using a no fly list is not - because as Ive said before - you get on the no fly list because somebody like me clicks a mouse - that is not due process... it is government fiat

As for Dicks and Walmart - if they choose not to sell "assault" weapons at all (whatever THAT is ... I can assault you with a .22) then thats fine- don't sell them

If they decide to only sell them to people 21 and over, they will lose that inevitable court battle... in fact I am sure the more savvy ambulance chasers already have 20 year olds lined up to be denied a gun at Wal Mart

You're right on this- When SCOTUS smacks that one down you had better believe the wedding cake mafia will cry foul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Any FFL can deny sale to anyone they choose. I was just reading the Google reviews of a popular gun store in Newark. They have some bad reviews from black folks who say they were profiled and denied. Many were interracial couples where the black man handled the weapon and then the white female attempted to initiate the 4473. These routinely get refused as potential straw purchases. The same store also has a policy of not selling HiPoint handguns, because they are <$200 and have shown up in multiple shootings in Wilmington.

93henfan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Any FFL can deny sale to anyone they choose. I was just reading the Google reviews of a popular gun store in Newark. They have some bad reviews from black folks who say they were profiled and denied. Many were interracial couples where the black man handled the weapon and then the white female attempted to initiate the 4473. These routinely get refused as potential straw purchases. The same store also has a policy of not selling HiPoint handguns, because they are <$200 and have shown up in multiple shootings in Wilmington.

Those are individual judgments based on profiles (which are legal in many circumstances)

Those are different from an arbitrary blanket decision not based on any basis of criminality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Any FFL can deny sale to anyone they choose. I was just reading the Google reviews of a popular gun store in Newark. They have some bad reviews from black folks who say they were profiled and denied. Many were interracial couples where the black man handled the weapon and then the white female attempted to initiate the 4473. These routinely get refused as potential straw purchases. The same store also has a policy of not selling HiPoint handguns, because they are <$200 and have shown up in multiple shootings in Wilmington.

Those are individual judgments based on profiles (which are legal in many circumstances)

Those are different from an arbitrary blanket decision not based on any basis of criminality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Precisely, and it also happens to white couples.

Good advice is to never bring another person when you are gun-shopping. That eliminates the straw-purchase profiling concerns.

houndawg wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Like I said all last year hes always been a liberal, they should love the guy.

He's going to reclassify semi-auto rifles with machine guns. Probably improve the nation's marksmanship on average

That doesnt effect me in any way. Make whatever law you want they will not be followed. In fact it will make me a ton of money in the process. Im kind of hoping for it.

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

But it's a good point - you can't refuse to sell to people because they're Black, so no matter what the sign says you don't have that right (heck, dawg, you're starting to sound like JSO).

It is interesting, I'm sure both Walmart and Dick's could be sued if all they do is set an age limit that's not tied to an actual law. Of course, they could just decide not to sell guns altogether, and that would be fine. Restricting ages, however noble, does seem to run afoul of the law.

With that said, I'm all in favor of making the ages for long guns and handguns the same anyway. Let's make it 21 across the board at the federal level and then the question of retailers being sued goes away.

JSO is 3 or 4 times smarter than dawg.......you dont even need to let that sink it its just there already.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
He's going to reclassify semi-auto rifles with machine guns. Probably improve the nation's marksmanship on average

That doesnt effect me in any way. Make whatever law you want they will not be followed. In fact it will make me a ton of money in the process. Im kind of hoping for it.

Warming up that serial number grinder, eh?

GannonFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
they'll be wrong this time too.

Every store I walked into as a kid had a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

But it's a good point - you can't refuse to sell to people because they're Black, so no matter what the sign says you don't have that right (heck, dawg, you're starting to sound like JSO).

It is interesting, I'm sure both Walmart and Dick's could be sued if all they do is set an age limit that's not tied to an actual law. Of course, they could just decide not to sell guns altogether, and that would be fine. Restricting ages, however noble, does seem to run afoul of the law.

With that said, I'm all in favor of making the ages for long guns and handguns the same anyway. Let's make it 21 across the board at the federal level and then the question of retailers being sued goes away.

Unless you're in the military, of course, and then at 17 or 18 you're plenty old enough to be handed a fully automatic weapon.

93henfan wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote: That doesnt effect me in any way. Make whatever law you want they will not be followed. In fact it will make me a ton of money in the process. Im kind of hoping for it.

Warming up that serial number grinder, eh?

Are those legal to own? Is there and age limit? Oh and I never heard of them before

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
But it's a good point - you can't refuse to sell to people because they're Black, so no matter what the sign says you don't have that right (heck, dawg, you're starting to sound like JSO).

It is interesting, I'm sure both Walmart and Dick's could be sued if all they do is set an age limit that's not tied to an actual law. Of course, they could just decide not to sell guns altogether, and that would be fine. Restricting ages, however noble, does seem to run afoul of the law.

With that said, I'm all in favor of making the ages for long guns and handguns the same anyway. Let's make it 21 across the board at the federal level and then the question of retailers being sued goes away.

Unless you're in the military, of course, and then at 17 or 18 you're plenty old enough to be handed a fully automatic weapon.

Jut proves how arbitrary that number is. 18 to buy gun but 21 to buy a beer.