Trump affirms support for denying Americans their second amendment rights


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump today repeated his support for the idea of allowing the FBI or a bureaucrat in Washington to decide whether Americans will have the right to own or buy guns, essentially denying them their second amendment rights.

Donald Trump reaffirmed his stance on restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, despite Republican objections. “We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told ABC’s White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week.”. [emphasis mine]

So now, according to Trump it is even reasonable for the government to deny you your rights, based merely on what they think you think. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially when such power is handed to government bureaucrats whose political bosses crave power above all else?

I must admit I have been toying with the idea of voting for Trump, because Hillary Clinton is going to be far worse. Trump however is doing his damndest to convince me that this would be a mistake, and a third party vote makes more sense, even if Gary Johnson has his own problems..

19 comments

  • LocalFluff

    One cannot let muslims carry weapons, see what they do with them in all of their countries from Morocco to Pakistan! They can pick up a stone from the ground if they need to defend themselves, but since all terrorists in the world are muslims that won’t happen if they are disarmed.

  • Cotour

    Tread carefully Donald J. Trump.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/18/that-is-not-my-question-trey-gowdy-absolutely-grills-dhs-official-on-second-amendment-due-process/

    The way that I have come to see Trump after observing for so many years is that he is always in the process of creating capital / leverage in his endeavors to be strategically used in future related situations. Everything that he says has this intent buried within it, IMO.

    He has not really hampered himself by speaking about the Constitution specifically or if he even fundamentally understands the Constitution and what it proposes. Should he become president he is going to need strong feed back if he indeed only sees the Constitution as something to be dealt way as one would trade air rights for zoning considerations.

    One thing that I am certain of however, if Hillary becomes president there will certainly be very strong and rights stripping legislation passed that she WILL sign and have up held by her newly installed liberal majority in the Supreme Court.

    Now choose between the two.

  • wayne

    Trump lost me completely, months ago. He displays a glaring fundamental ignorance of our Constitution, on a daily basis.
    There is literally nothing he could claim or say at this point, that would sway me to his side.

    >I’m just going to concentrate on the down-ballot this November.

    Personally, I would prefer an Austin Peterson over a Gary Johnson on the Libertarian side . (The Convention was a bit of a Circus & it’s disheartening to have otherwise rational, albeit hard-core Libertarians, arguing whether 5 year olds should have open access to heroin. Reminds me of when Ron Paul was the favorite among Libertarians.)

    LocalFluff: As always, very colorful commentary!

    The Jihadi’s need to be KILLED–in their own homeland(s), in huge numbers and ALL of their stuff broken beyond repair or use. No rebuilding their crap infrastructure, or any fruitless “democracy-projects.” Don’t want to Colonize these people, don’t want to run their little hell-hole Countries, don’t much care one micron about them, at all. Just want them dead, in the most violent & quick fashion possible.

    No need to up-end & distort our entire political system, because our leaders lack the will to wipe these crazies off the face of the Earth.

  • Cotour

    “One thing that I am certain of however, if Hillary becomes president there will certainly be very strong and rights stripping legislation passed that she WILL sign and have up held by her newly installed liberal majority in the Supreme Court.”

    Someone in January of 2017 will be president. Now choose.

  • LocalFluff

    If voters cared about the constitution they would have voted for Ron Paul 4 years ago. He got about 15% of the GOP nomination votes, right? But that was out of a small total and mostly because he alone stayed to the end and got the anti-Romney vote. I don’t know what Trump plans to do with the constitution when he becomes president, he just plays this game now as he needs to play it in order to win. He does it very skillfully. NRA has endorsed him already, they’ve folded so he doesn’t need to yield anything to them. How embarrassing wouldn’t it be for their leadership to retract? Trump plays against those who still have some cards on their hands. A KGB guy like Putin would leave a negotiation with Trump naked. And shaved. But still happy to think he’s on the winning side now. Politics and massmedia doesn’t allow for any academic discussions. The establishments are so stupid to over the decades having dumbed down the system of political communication to a level they don’t master.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Now choose between the two.”

    I’m still going to choose a third — one who favors liberty over tyranny. You always want to limit my options. How tyrannical of you, but that would explain why you favor tyranny over liberty.

    Clinton or Trump, it doesn’t make any difference to me which is president. Both are equally bad in their own ways, but both will result in the same losses of liberty and increase of tyranny. I will do my best to keep both out, but people like you, Cotour, who refuse to believe there is an alternative, will assure that your own worst nightmare comes true.

  • Cotour

    Please name that third person’s name.

  • Cotour

    And do you believe this SH_T ?!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/19/lynch_partial_transcript_of_orlando_911_calls_will_have_references_to_isis_cut_out.html

    The truth I am now assuming is too upsetting for the general American public to hear? Kindergarten will resume on Monday, enjoy your weekend.

  • pzatchok

    I can only speak about Ohio law.

    But as it stands in Ohio anyone can be denied for any legal infraction. Late child support, unpaid traffic tickets any violent crime or indictment, and any drug offense. Plus any number of federal reasons. You can then take them to court and force them to show cause and reasons.

    But as the law states they must inform the dealer inside a set number of days why the hold was placed on the purchase and if they do not get back to the dealer inside that time the sale goes through.
    Adding the no fly list to the long list of reasons is in my opinion nothing new and no real hindrance. But if they change the delay time or the release reasons then they will be trying to push things into the denial of rights area.

    The simple fact is you cannot be denied the right to buy a gun until your convicted of a crime. Violent or drug related.

    I was delayed because of my birth place once but never again. It turns out they have a list of people who have been falsely denied. Reasons like the same name as a felon, special work reasons, traffic tickets now taken care of, stolen ID and any number of other bureaucratic paperwork reasons.

    In the Florida case the feds fell right on their face. They could have placed a hold on the sale then placed a tail on the guy.
    But we must not offend any Muslims now should we.

  • Cotour

    On second thought maybe the solution might be to let the entire thing go to the left, allow the Republican party to implode and empty itself of all support and see what happens?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/end-of-conservative-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-may-be-next-to-leave/article/2594317

    Robert once posited the scenario, maybe we will all get to see its effects in the near future.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Please name that third person’s name.”

    1) That is what “secret ballot” means.

    2) Just because you are unwilling to acknowledge that there are alternative candidates does not mean that there aren’t any.

    3) If you are looking for a third person to vote for yourself, I believe that you are intelligent enough to make your own choice.

    4) Not only do you not need me to tell you who to vote for, I do not want to tell you who to vote for. I don’t want to be like you, Cotour, insisting that you vote for “my guy.” I do and have, however, asked that you consider alternative candidates rather than favor tyranny. So far, you have refused to even acknowledge the existence of any alternatives.

    5) Because you insist that the choice is between only two people, I seriously doubt that your curiosity of who I will vote for has anything to do with item three, above. As I have been saying for weeks, you obviously have no interest, at this time, in a president who favors liberty, you only have an interest in voting for a liberal Democrat who favors tyranny, and you insist that we choose from only among the two options that the Democrats and Democrat wannabes will likely offer us by summer’s end.

  • Cotour

    While you apparently dance around to your own personal music in your head trying to not answer a plain and direct question, that tells me something about you. You have not an answer. I want you to tell me who is the third person that you are going to vote for that can beat Hillary and become the president.

    ” insisting that you vote for “my guy.” ”

    Its not about “my guy” its………..now pay attention…………about not allowing Hillary to become the president of the United States. Its not about Trump.

    You task me Edward.

  • Edward

    Cotour,
    You wrote: “Its not about “my guy” its………..now pay attention…………about not allowing Hillary to become the president of the United States. Its not about Trump.”

    Since you insist that Trump cannot win election to become the president of the United States — this is your reason for trying to convince me to vote for Trump — then it is ………..now pay attention………… not about preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming the president of the United States. You have already admitted that Trump cannot do it, thus your argument that it is to prevent Hillary from winning is moot.

    As for invading my privacy and violating the secret ballot, how tyrannical of you. No wonder you favor tyranny over liberty. Or should I revisit my belief stated in item three of my previous reply?

  • Cotour

    1. Please point out where I said that I though that Trump could not win. I do not recall stating such. Trump must win! If you have been confused by what I have written previously, let me clear it up right here and now and set the record straight. Trump must win, more importantly Hillary must loose, is my clearly stated position for these many weeks and even months.

    2. “As for invading my privacy and violating the secret ballot,” I laughed out loud when I read that, how ridiculous. You claim to have a third name of a candidate who you believe can win the presidency and you will not share your discovery with other people that can help make that so? Ridiculous.

    You are on the verge of me classifying you as being intellectually dishonest. I tend to only reserve that tag for liberals with that term.

  • Edward

    1. The entire point of your arguments have been that you needed my vote in order for Trump — your guy — to win. You wouldn’t care if he were a shoo-in. If you don’t care, then lets stop wasting each other’s time, because I will never vote for a tyrant like Trump or Clinton. Thus you have no worries.

    2. Obviously we think differently. I like my privacy, like many conservatives do, and you like to nose in on other people’s business, like many modern liberals and progressives do. I have had the thought for many months that you are actually a liberal progressive who thinks he is a conservative, and that thought gets stronger all the time. Please do not project your own thought processes onto me. I am not you, I do not think like you, and I dearly hope that I never do think like you. I hope that I always stick to my principles and never vote for tyranny, and never try to tell others what to do — only request, suggest, or recommend.

    When you reserve the tag “intellectually dishonest” for liberals, do you include liberals like Trump, who changes what he says are his positions easily and often? Also, do you mean the modern liberal or the classical liberal?

  • ken anthony

    both will result in the same losses of liberty and increase of tyranny

    Which one has actual reduced liberty or increased tyranny? Only one of the two.

    Trump is the definition of mercurial, which is to say, he may do some of the things you fear. Hillary is not. We know exactly what she’ll do.

    Trump can be influenced. That’s often a good thing. Hillary will be influenced like Obama is influenced, which is to say, not at all.

    You do not have to like Trump to use Trump.

    At this point, no third party can win, but if you like a third party candidate voting for them will have the result of selecting the one most unlike them. This is not debatable. This is simply how it works. Adam Corolla has some good thoughts on stupid people…”I don’t like that”, “What’s your solution?”,”I don’t know, but I don’t like that.”

  • Cotour

    “and you like to nose in on other people’s business,”

    1. We are having, I thought, an open discussion about the politics of the day, and now you are a very private person? If you plainly say that you have another option to vote for, which you have stated, I and everyone else am interested in your thoughts on the subject. I did not think it a violation of your privacy.

    2. I have thought for the last couple of weeks that where you are cornered you have a problem with recognizing your own weakness and can not reexamine your own thought process. And there by achieving my “intellectually dishonest” designation.

    3. “request, suggest, or recommend.” While I may be a bit too strong / aggressive for you (and some other’s who may read these postings) , in the end I am attempting to introduce / suggest the logic that IMO must be applied in such situations as in this dirty, filthy game of politics. It is not a nice game, it is a treacherous game because its about the acquisition of REAL POWER and sometimes to nicely / civilly tippy toe around the facts and site your “principles” to me seems senseless and a self serving waste of time. No one but you cares about your principles in this instance, it is essential that Trump or anyone else wins the 2016 race for the presidency and more importantly Hillary not win. Its admirable that you in deed do have principles, but no one cares in this instance. If you have the name of that other person that you have intimated please share it. Your refusal to do so earns you your new new designation.

    4. Yes, if Trump is intellectually dishonest than he too will also achieve your new designation, which does not mean that I no longer like him, or you. I just pay closer attention to their speech and call them out when they tend to act counter to what I think is in the interest of what they profess to be concerned about. Most politicians by necessity have to be intellectually dishonest, its the nature of the work, by definition they must lie as part of their job description.

    5. That would be “modern Liberal”. I define myself as a classical liberal, as are you, as is Wayne, as is Zman, as is anyone who respects the rights of others and by extension the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. In other words we are personally / foundationally Libertarians, which is a philosophy of personal operation and respect and not a political system of operation. Which is why I do not quite understand what the Libertarian party is all about, another ideological waste of time.

  • wayne

    Cotour:

    The Libertarian Party is an affiliation of a diverse set of people, across the spectrum, including the anarcho-capitalist wing & the more classical-liberal wing, but all of which are defined, in general, by their desire for the maximum amount of freedom within the most minimalist governmental institutions, within our historic & cultural mores.
    (This also explains why they spend a lot of time debating whether walking on a government funded sidewalk is morally acceptable, and of course, the whole Heroin ‘thang.)

    I would proffer that our Country was indeed founded on Libertarian principles & it is precisely because we have moved away from them, we now find ourselves in the current situation. Libertarians may appear overly “ideological” in your view, but I would propose that is only because we are so far removed from our real roots.

    -It’s a bit unfair of you to hassle Edward about his Presidential candidate. He can pick anyone he wants or not. Personally, I’m not voting for Trump or Hillary, and that’s a done-deal (100%) in my mind. I’m far more concerned with the down-ballot at this point.

    Edward: Good job defending your views, on any number of topics!

  • Edward

    ken anthony wrote: “At this point, no third party can win, but if you like a third party candidate voting for them will have the result of selecting the one most unlike them.”

    It is fine for others to sell out their own principles; it bothers me only in that it is behavior that is similar to the Republican Party leadership. It is not fine for me to sell out mine; that bothers me a lot. You may not like that I value my principles that much, and you may not have a solution that includes them, but if you mind that I stick to my principles, that is your problem, not mine.

    By the way: which candidate do you believe is most unlike the candidate that you think I will vote for, and why do you believe that and why do you think that? From my chair, both of the candidates that are being discussed, here, are the same; neither is more unlike my choice than the other.

    Cotour

    You wrote: “We are having, I thought, an open discussion about the politics of the day, and now you are a very private person?”

    Really? And when have I *ever* stated anyone that I voted for? This is not sudden, it has been consistent. (However, I often say that I vote for Pat Paulson, but that is only because he promised to personally investigate several things that were happening in America, including – perhaps especially – the Nevada brothels.)

    You wrote: “I have thought for the last couple of weeks that where you are cornered you have a problem with recognizing your own weakness and can not reexamine your own thought process. And there by achieving my “intellectually dishonest” designation.”

    Yet another point that you had wrong.

    Why do you believe that I am cornered? I do not see myself that way. My position is still consistent with my beliefs, and I do not sell out my principles in order to claim a very small victory – yet end up with the same result. Seriously, I am rethinking item three, in my reply above.
    You wrote: “in the end I am attempting to introduce / suggest the logic that IMO must be applied in such situations as in this dirty, filthy game of politics.”

    And from earlier: “While you apparently dance around to your own personal music in your head trying to not answer a plain and direct question, that tells me something about you.”

    You have inferred the wrong things about me. You have inferred in me things that you would be thinking under similar circumstances. Now I know that whenever you do not answer one of my questions, it is due to intellectual dishonesty on your part. My principles are not an indication of intellectual dishonesty, but it is clear that to your way of thinking they could be confused as such.

    You project your still unresolved liberal thinking onto me, a conservative thinker. You have not been a conservative long enough to really understand the concept, just as Trump does not – Trump can’t even come close to defining it when asked. You logic is still the logic of a liberal. You are still making the transition, and like Reagan, it will take years to finally get there. I recommend that you listen to a few or all of Reagan’s recordings on the issue of liberty, America, and conservativism. Here is one to get you started:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE3sNY-niiA (4 minutes)

    You wrote: “I define myself as a classical liberal.”

    However, many of your statements and opinions have not favored liberty but favored large government. Even now, you are willing to vote for a large government guy, just so that you can claim to be on the winning side.

    Wayne,
    Thanks for the moral support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *