No no no no FUCK NO

President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

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


While I agree that nutcases shouldn’t have guns you cannot, absolutely cannot, bypass due process.
It sets a precedence that can be seriously abused in other situations that can and will be exploited whenever Trump or any president following him feels like it.

This entry was posted in Gun Control, Politics, WTF?. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to No no no no FUCK NO

  1. Ragnar says:

    Drumpf. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. They just don’t get it. What pray tell might happen if several million people decided not to file with the irs thieves come April? Won’t happen though, but it’s fun to think about it.

  2. George says:

    What the actual f@*k is he thinking? He has lost his freakin mind!

  3. Don’t know why anyone should be surprised. Trump is more Democrat than Conservative .

    • bogsidebunny says:

      Would you rather deal with Hillary, Mark?

      • Wirecutter says:

        Fuck, at least she was up front when it came to gun control.

      • Of course not, but that doesn’t change anything. Trump was a Democrat for many years, and still is in many ways.

        • Bacon says:

          Of course it does. Honesty changes everything. I don’t care what Trump WAS, I care what he IS.

          Everyone screws up. And everyone has the potential to change. Most never do, but anyone can.

          Even Mike V was once a communist before he became a Patriot. Ain’t many fit to stand in his shoes.

      • Bruce says:

        It’s a case of would you rather deal with Hillary or the 8 time Hillary donor who supported her right up until he decided to run against her. We coulda had a real conservative President but the media, the Democrats and the GOP establishment didn’t want that.

        Robert Reich and Jimmy Carter were both quoted during the primaries saying Trump over Cruz because Cruz has convictions and Trump doesn’t. He’s flexible.

  4. Oldav8r says:

    Aaand are we all looking forward to having Oprah in the WH and deciding who’s crazy enough to have their guns taken away??

  5. Chish says:

    Next up, I have a pen and a phone. SMH……

  6. NewVegasBadger says:

    I’d like to know what he is smoking. All the warning signs that POS was mentally unstable were well known and documented, why those whose job was to intervene saw and did nothing. The cops before (911 calls) and the 4 sheriffs who were armed did nothing while children died (but they did go home safe at the end of their shift) and the FBI who was too busy covering for Hillary, to find a guy who used his own name on a post. I guess that it takes an engraved invitation with and RSVP before any one takes action to stop a shooter.

  7. Sedition says:

    Looks like we may be fighting sooner rather than later…

  8. kdts says:

    Maybe he’s callin the d’s out like he did with daca. Said somethin like bring me a bill and I’ll sign it.
    Showed the d’s weren’t interested in fixin daca, probably doin the same here.

    Just curious, did ya actually watch the roundtable or listen to the talkin heads in print and/or tv for your information?

  9. paulb says:

    They are pulling out all the stops on this one. Dems might have offered we will kill the russian investigation if you roll on this.

    What I want to know is where is the outrage at the obvious attempt by the dems to completely rig the election. Just more of us showed up that there statistics thought would so we blew the corrected model out of the water. Only place they won where the ones that we so crooked it did not matter.

    We need to decorate some power poles with some dems to let them get the message. leave us the hell alone.

    • Nemo says:

      No matter what the Dem’s offer, once the bill passes in a form that they’ll vote for, they’ll ignore their part of the bargain by not approving appropriations just like they did with the wall funding part of the ’76 amnesty bill.

      NEVER EVER trust a Dem (and a lot of Republicans are just as guilty) to live up to their promises unless they promise to raise taxes or impose new more restrictive regulations on whatever issue.

  10. Gator says:

    The problem with the phrase ‘obviously I don’t want nutcases to have guns’ is that the term ‘nutcase’ is subjective, and is mostly a matter of opinion. While most will agree that some guy in a padded cell that smears his shit on the walls is, in fact, a nutcase and shouldn’t have guns, what happens when the people in charge decide that anyone with conservative views is a ‘nutcase’ and not allowed to have guns? Thats where that line of reasoning ends up. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next, year, but eventually. Not one more inch. Fuck them all.

    • MT says:

      You nailed it, Gator. My greatest fear. No f’***ing way we start down that slippery slope.

    • Plan K. Ton says:

      The problem that they will have (among many others) in this is the concept of “Prior Restraint”. If SCOTUS goes for this, it is my personal opinion that exceedingly spicy times are around the corner.

      Consider if you will the application of “nutcase” and how it can be broadly applied to the Progressive/Communist/Marxist/Trotskite/Maoist individuals that you know of and then realize that teh political landscape will never be the same.

      Prior restraint refers to censorship before publication, the principle applies to other free speech (i.e., “owning a bump stock”).

      Not an attorney, and I have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in a while.

  11. rsj says:

    Well, I am hoping he is playing rope a dope. He has done that several times already and the dems keep falling for it. I am linking Ace of Spades blogpost because he asked the same question and then posted an update with an opinion from a friend of his.

  12. Ken M says:

    Tell him hell no as fast as the hardest racist or the most retarded liberal on the planet. No one man will over rule the Constitution…under any circumstance or power on earth

  13. He let them frame this as a gun issue. I thought there were some dead students. We need to harden up, and protect our own. You can’t allow a predator to get loose in a nursery. Gun laws and EOs are words on pieces of paper.

  14. rsj says:

    One more link and I will stop, not trying to junk up wirecutter’s space. Legalinsurrection has a post up about it also. (Between the ace post and here I am feeling much calmer)

  15. mjh10 says:

    “While I agree that nutcases shouldn’t have guns you cannot, absolutely cannot, bypass due process.” What about asset forfeiture when they stop someone and take all of their cash and call it drug related?????

  16. BadFrog says:

    This is already law here in the UK. For God’s sake, don’t follow our lead.

  17. anonymous says:

    Stopping a sale, little problem with that. TAKING ALREADY OWNED PRIVATE PROPERTY – we have the Bill of Rights 4th Amendment for that.

    But in the case of Cruz – i could have seen that happening. Many past threats of violence which did not escalate at the time, but you could see the handwriting on the wall. In his case – yeah, should have happened.

    But ONLY in such cases of repeated offenses. And certainly not based on hearsay evidence – proof is required.

If your comment 'disappears', don't trip - it went to my trash folder and I will restore it when I moderate.