BREAKING: Donald Trump Says Take Them Guns

President Donald Trump.

The Hill reports while the entire American political establishment tries to figure out what the hell just happened:

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. [Pols emphasis]

Vice President Mike Pence tried to jump on the proverbial grenade:

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.

But President Trump wasn’t playing:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” Trump responded. [Pols emphasis]

So, the idea that guns could be confiscated without even having to go to court would seem to go beyond even the desires of most gun control proponents–although intervention in the case of mentally ill people in possession of guns through some kind of lawful preventative means is certainly something leaders need to be looking at. Having overshot the objective of gun safety proponents, and then doubling down to ensure everyone knows it wasn’t a misstatement, Trump may have created space for some good between the extremes to happen.

That, or a yuuuuge backpedal is about to get underway.

35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Pseudonymous says:

    I assumed we would have to pry them from his tiny, tiny hands.

  2. Davie says:

    As usual, this is just insincere feel-good blather from Trump based on his standard inch deep assessment of the problem.  All to distract and derail any meaningful progress on commonsense solutions.

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    In a related story:

    . . . In the first phone conversation with the new White House Communications Director and reporters, President Drumpf was also said to promise that he “would personally run in there and take those guns,” according to Mr. John Barron.

  4. ajb says:

    I think I hear the sound of heads exploding to my right and popcorn to my left, but I could be mistaken. 

    • mamajama55 says:


    • ParkHill says:

      From the TPM comment section:

      They wanted to keep him. We told them – you will regret this – he isn't housetrained and there's a reason why he was where he was when you found him. We told them he wasn't going to be a good pet, that he was covered with vermin and stank and was a biter, but they were so damn sure they could get what they wanted from him.

  5. Negev says:

    And House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons, finally showing their elusive true colors. 

    Actually the Bill states:

    ‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

    ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession,  sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.

    They also have a buyback clause DUKE! that was your idea! (Congrats!):

    SEC. 7. USE OF BYRNE GRANTS FOR BUY-BACK PROGRAMS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS  AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.  Section 501(a)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and  Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)(1)) is  amended by adding at the end the following:  ‘‘(H) Compensation for surrendered semi automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, as those terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code, under buy-back programs for semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’’.

    This is gonna get interesting really soon! I see gun sales going THROUGH THE ROOF in a predictable, historic and time tested panic, with little to no chance of this bill passing. I often wonder whose side these people are on? In an effort to remove assault weapons from the population they incite a fabricated hysteria which increases exponentially that which they attempt to diminish, with incentive to buy before it's too late! Seriously, who needs the NRA? 




    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Hey, Negev…….

      How do you feel about taking away the guns first, and then let the owners petition in court to get them back? Maybe require a pysch evaluation by a court-appointed shrink before the gun owner can qualify to get it back.

      It's extraordinary. Even Obama – who was supposed to be coming for your guns – never went there.

      • MADCO says:

        Due process is for children and sane, law abiding citizens… wait

        Lock her up.
        Lock him up 

        Manafort, Flynn (s) , Kushner (s) , Hicks (s) , Page, that other guy, the other two that confessed, Bannon and that woman  – lock em up

      • Negev says:

        I know right?!? I see it now "Trump does more for gun safety in 1 year than Obama did in 8!" It is …. as you say… extraordinary.

        I am however opposed to guilty until proven innocent and due process protections should be upheld. I know it's counterintuitive to the gun safety debate but it appears, to me, to violate Constitutional rights, which I am against. 

        That being said, in the context of the last school shooting, I am in firm belief that this shooter exhibited adequate pre shooting evidence to have committed a crime. Actionable police visits to the tune of 39 to the shooters home, which included a phone call to the police, by the shooter, admitting to putting a gun to another persons head is a crime, a bullets on campus violation is a crime, threatening students (intimidation) is a crime, and list goes on. All of which went unpunished. 

        The school PROMISE program appears to have allowed crimes committed by the shooter to go unreported and therefore allowed him to pass a background check. A check that would have prohibited him from buying a gun had the system worked as it should. 

        So, its dicey. If you are legally permitted to own a firearm I do not believe you should be prohibited from buying one if you chose. However, if you chose to post on social media that you are going to shoot up your school, you should be arrested and indicted for felony menacing. At least. 

        Now, if you are "Under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year" you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This is part of the FORM 4473 (see 11a) already and would have prevented this kid from getting a gun long before he had the inclination to use it. 

        Short story long, I like the idea that Cheeto is focusing on mental health, but the method in my opinion does not pass Constitutional muster. 





    • unnamed says:

      So.  House Dems showed their "true colors"?  And Trump just showed a full rainbow of his true colors.  

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Good for them.  It’s a start, much needed and long overdue. 

      PS — You were looking for any excuse to by more guns, anyway?! Say, “thank you.”

  6. JohnInDenver says:

    Trump had lunch with the NRA on Sunday, and perhaps heard them say rumors of gun bans cause extreme buying by the RWNJs. So naturally, he figured he needed to suggest a gun ban to prop up the industry and have them get on board with his alternate slogan — "Make American Guns Again."

  7. mamajama55 says:

    The transcript of Trump's "speech"* from that roundtable is kind of terrifying To call his words "rambling" would imply that he covered some ground. A sample:

    The door closes and now we can’t get in, have to send the tractor through the walls. So we have to be careful of that. We have to create a culture that cherishes life and human dignity. We’re all going to sit around and come up with some ideas. Hopefully, we can put those ideas in a very bipartisan bill. It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everybody could support as opposed to, you know, 15 bills.

    There’s no reason for this. I really believe that those people, it’s idealistic, wonderful, a beautiful thing. If you think that somebody is going to be able to walk into a school, if they feel that they’re not going to have bullets coming at them from the other direction, you’re never going to solve the problem. I feel that. I feel that. But I’m certainly open to suggestions. So, John, why don’t you start? You’ve put in your fix nix. Let’s see how it is and we’ll go ahead.


    *"speech" also implies planning and purpose – not qualities showed in Trump's words.

    • ajb says:

      Every transcript of Trump speaking freely looks like you ran a children's book through a Cuisinart.

    • MADCO says:

      The 'problem' of course is this is how he ran his businesses (into the ground) and he got rich and richer so he's thinking this is the real way to 'govern'

      But what I hear is 
      This governing thing is hard.. we need one bill , not multiple

      My generals are great, and Kelly can decide who gets a clearance and who can work with an interim clearance …damned AG recused this, IG that

      Its incredibly hard and Im rich and president… 

      Of course he could inherit a declining Euro economy, and failed states in China, N. Korea, Yemen, Syria, Moscow
      He could luck into no shootings – at school or elsewhere – for 2 years and then he gets reelected

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.