After Florida shooting, Trump offers comfort — to gun owners

   WASHINGTON — The day after a shooter killed 17 people at a Florida high school, Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon offered comforting words — for gun owners.

   "We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools and tackle the difficult issue of mental health," Trump said in brief remarks at the White House. "It is not enough to simply take actions that make us feel like we are making a difference. We must actually make that difference."

   Translation: Your guns are safe.
   "That's very encouraging that he's not mounting up with the anti-Second Amendment posse," said Larry Pratt, executive director emeritus of the Gun Owners of America, an advocacy group based in Virginia. "The response from gun owners will be principally that he didn't say the kind of things Hillary Clinton would have said had she been president and the way Barack Obama reacted to other situations like this."

   No modern American president has had a closer bond with gun owners than Trump, who won 62 percent of their votes in 2016, then promised the National Rifle Association in April 2017 that he would "never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

   And on Thursday, against the backdrop of calls for tighter gun restrictions from Democrats, some Republicans and several students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida — where a former student gunned down 17 people on Wednesday — Trump signaled again that his focus is on the mental state of shooters, not the weapons they use to commit their crimes.

   He didn't mention guns at all.

   "The fact that the president didn't talk about rifles today ... that was good," said Chris Waltz, president and CEO of AR-15 Gun Owners of America, a Warner Robbins, Ga.-based company that sells semi-automatic rifles and claims a community of enthusiasts numbering more than 500,000. "He's been, so far, the most outspoken president on gun issues, as far as supporting the Second Amendment."

   The aftermath of any mass shooting is an anxious time for gun-rights groups, many of which worry that sentiment on Capitol Hill or in the administration could shift in response.
   "We’re always concerned after a tragedy that the response will be either poor, misguided or just emotional," said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights.

   In particular, he said he was discomfited by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's response to a question from Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing Thursday.

   "I will say personally, I think the gun violence — it's a tragedy what we've seen yesterday, and I'd urge Congress to look at these issues," Mnuchin said.

   While Mnuchin didn't go so far as to back any particular action, the words struck Brown as "intimating gun control" and a potential waver in the administration's stance.

   "Our concern is the canary in the coal mine," he said.

   For years, gun control advocates — most of them Democrats — have engaged in futile and frustrating efforts to enact new measures. Now, in the wake of Thursday's massacre they are escalating their rhetoric again, perhaps in hopes of putting more public pressure on Republican lawmakers to join them.

   "If you are not working today to try to fix this, to try to stop these shootings, then you're an accomplice," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a leading voice in favor of tightening gun laws, said Thursday.

   Many gun owners believe Murphy's answer is the wrong one. Rather than focusing on how to crack down on guns, they say, the government should do more to ensure that people with mental health problems don't have access to weapons and that schools are more secure.

   And though the only gun policy-related law Trump has signed so far has been a measure repealing an Obama-era rule that made it more difficult for those with mental illnesses to purchase guns, those are the topics he said he would focus on.

   Some gun-rights advocates say schools are soft targets for shooters because law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to pack weapons on their grounds. In their view, elected officials should roll back laws that ban guns on campuses because they are counterproductive.

   "You have to conclude these gun free zones are murder magnets," Pratt said. "Anybody legally carrying should be able to be on school property, the same as they can be in a supermarket or an automobile lot."

   Trump has endorsed a repeal of the federal gun-free school zones law in the past, and it could be that he sees such action as part of his promise to increase safety at schools.

   With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress — and Democrats holding enough seats to sustain a filibuster in the Senate — it seems highly unlikely that Congress will send Trump any major change to gun laws anytime soon.

   On Thursday, gun-rights advocates praised Trump's expressions of sympathy for the victims, their families and survivors of the shooting. They were reassured by what he's said in the past — and what he didn't say at the White House — about his universe of solutions for preventing the next deadly attack.

   "I’m confident that the president meant what he said: that he’s not going to pursue a potential solution that’s going to infringe on our constitutional rights," said David Bozell, president of the conservative group For America. "Gun owners like myself, we want the ability to defend our families against bad guys."

eddie wrote:What happened to gun laws when Obama was president?

Lurker wrote:

eddie wrote:What happened to gun laws when Obama was president?

The NRA is more powerful than any president or administration.

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

The NRA is more powerful than any president or administration.

Ah ok. So therefore, Trump can’t do anything about guns then, is that right?

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

The NRA is more powerful than any president or administration.

Ah ok. So therefore, Trump can’t do anything about guns then, is that right?

eddie wrote:What happened to gun laws when Obama was president?

CNN wrote:In addition to expanding and bolstering the background check system to cover sales that take place online and at gun shows, Obama said the administration will provide more funding for mental health treatment, FBI staff and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives agents.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The USA has over 315 million citizens...

The NRA has just over 4 million members..

Gun groups like the association in the o/p would only count their memberships in thousands.

Those gun owners' and manufacturers' lobby groups have way too much influence over American life and governance, in relation to their actual numbers..

Obviously it pays to own politicians and form strategic alliances in cases like this...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Isn't it a US constitutional right to "bear arms"?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done in response to incidents like this; I am simply wondering just how difficult it would be to reverse the "right."

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Isn't it a US constitutional right to "bear arms"?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done in response to incidents like this; I am simply wondering just how difficult it would be to reverse the "right."

I don't know, Fred.  How difficult would it be to bring 17 dead children back to life?  The US has about 4% of the world's population, yet it has over 55% of the worlds non-military guns, and some 66% of these civilian massacres.

Original Quill wrote:Long live the Pacific States of America.  The more that is revealed as abnormal in the United States, the more appealing is a new country.

The non-normal is the new normal.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Long live the Pacific States of America.  The more that is revealed as abnormal in the United States, the more appealing is a new country.

The non-normal is the new normal.

Or, remember when people used to co-exist peacefully, for the most part?

Ben wrote:I think secession is giving up on your fellow man, man.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Long live the Pacific States of America.  The more that is revealed as abnormal in the United States, the more appealing is a new country.

The non-normal is the new normal.

Or, remember when people used to co-exist peacefully, for the most part?

That's what is gone.  That's why the United States no longer works.

Ben wrote:I think secession is giving up on your fellow man, man.

No, just someone who is long gone.  And his replacement is not working out.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what is gone.  That's why the United States no longer works.



No, just someone who is long gone.  And his replacement is not working out.

Yeah, but we'll fix that. That's we have these little things I like to call "elections."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Isn't it a US constitutional right to "bear arms"?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done in response to incidents like this; I am simply wondering just how difficult it would be to reverse the "right."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Isn't it a US constitutional right to "bear arms"?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done in response to incidents like this; I am simply wondering just how difficult it would be to reverse the "right."

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Isn't it a US constitutional right to "bear arms"?

I'm not saying that nothing should be done in response to incidents like this; I am simply wondering just how difficult it would be to reverse the "right."

they could just define 'arms' as those at the time of the constitution

veya_victaous wrote:Yes, that would be more sensible

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Yes, that would be more sensible

It's a pretty straightforward process. Are you going to come over and help confiscate them?  

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's a pretty straightforward process. Are you going to come over and help confiscate them?  

6 months Amnesty for voluntary surrendering of arms ...... then drone strikes

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's a pretty straightforward process. Are you going to come over and help confiscate them?  

6 months Amnesty for voluntary surrendering of arms ...... then drone strikes

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

6 months Amnesty for voluntary surrendering of arms ...... then drone strikes

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

They did offer $$compensation$$ during the amnesty hand-ins down here...

However, I believe it only averaged somewhere between $400 and $500 for each registered and previously-legal weapon;  meaning that some collectors would have lost $$thousands$$..

The "amnesty" part of the buyback/hand-in deal allowed for unregistered inherited and neglected weapons to be surrendered at the same time.

Those collectors who still want to keep certain prohibited and restricted weapons, usually military and/or historical weapons, can get special collectors permits (in addition to a regular shooters licence), make those weapons inoperable (not simply removing parts, but such things as blocking barrels and destroying the firing mechanism..) and keeping them in a secure place.

Maddog wrote:Court documents say a 29-year-old woman woke up just before 6 a.m. on Sunday and noticed someone moving about her living room. They say she then woke her 33-year-old boyfriend who grabbed his Glock 26 and confronted Smith. Smith then said he broke in to escape the rain.

It was a rainy Sunday morning, but court documents say the woman also saw Smith moving in circles and checking out a living room TV.

Court documents say the homeowners didn’t know Smith, who was wanted for six unrelated active warrants.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/30/intruder-held-at-gunpoint-blames-rain-for-break-in/

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Court documents say a 29-year-old woman woke up just before 6 a.m. on Sunday and noticed someone moving about her living room. They say she then woke her 33-year-old boyfriend who grabbed his Glock 26 and confronted Smith. Smith then said he broke in to escape the rain.

It was a rainy Sunday morning, but court documents say the woman also saw Smith moving in circles and checking out a living room TV.

Court documents say the homeowners didn’t know Smith, who was wanted for six unrelated active warrants.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/30/intruder-held-at-gunpoint-blames-rain-for-break-in/

You can't generalize from specifics.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

They did offer $$compensation$$ during the amnesty hand-ins down here...

However, I believe it only averaged somewhere between $400 and $500 for each registered and previously-legal weapon;  meaning that some collectors would have lost $$thousands$$..

The "amnesty" part of the buyback/hand-in deal allowed for unregistered inherited and neglected weapons to be surrendered at the same time.

Those collectors who still want to keep certain prohibited and restricted weapons, usually military and/or historical weapons, can get special collectors permits (in addition to a regular shooters licence), make those weapons inoperable (not simply removing parts, but such things as blocking barrels and destroying the firing mechanism..) and keeping them in a secure place.

And for those that don't turn them in?

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And for those that don't turn them in?

those that don't turn them in are criminals
what do police do to Criminals ?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And for those that don't turn them in?

those that don't turn them in are criminals
what do police do to Criminals ?

Shoot them.

So much for ending gun violence.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Shoot them.

So much for ending gun violence.

Can't make an omelette with out breaking some eggs

And Anyone shooting at Police Should NEVER have been allowed a gun in the first place,
highlighting how crazily stupid the current situation is

veya_victaous wrote:exactly 245 years ago, (before the advent of Civilized nations a.k.a. the founding of Australia and NZ  )

Isn't it time you got over it

And now it is American cops so no 'Foreign power' to justify violence against gov't officials. Unless of course your calling for Armed Revolution  

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

6 months Amnesty for voluntary surrendering of arms ...... then drone strikes

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

Angry Andy wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Surrendering? Probably going to need to least offer some money for what are very expensive tools.  


We are not Australia.  You have made it quite clear over and over that Americans are different.  Don't forget that.  

Fucking right Americans are different.  Most right wingers worldwide are just selfish and plain wrong.
American right wingers are warped and fucking insane.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

Or I DO understand Americans but don't swallow the Propaganda about the land of the free when it's the home of the slave

DO YOU understand Americans?
Probably not it seems
You DO understand that American TV makes up about 60%-70% of TV in Australia? (not by our choice either)
You do understand that due to alliance and trade deals that the USA has a direct effect on Australia and the world?
You do Understand that the US has spent Decades working towards Cultural Dominance that has created a world which is highly educated in American Culture and Psyche?


And DRONES will work just fine
Watch Jim Jefferies, and note as a Aussie He also See the OBVIOUS BULLSHIT in the US gun debate and any argument for them Beyond "You like them and it's your hobby"  
 

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

To be honest, I find people going on about couture they don’t live in, immensely ignorant and irritating. I don’t care how many media sources people read or how many qualifications they have, you cannot know a place until you live there.

A lot of posters base their knowledge on books and old-time beliefs and articles.
Me, not so much.  I like to use experience as my guide and not only read one publication and think that’s the oracle.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

To be honest, I find people going on about couture they don’t live in, immensely ignorant and irritating. I don’t care how many media sources people read or how many qualifications they have, you cannot know a place until you live there.

A lot of posters base their knowledge on books and old-time beliefs and articles.
Me, not so much.  I like to use experience as my guide and not only read one publication and think that’s the oracle.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Veya, you really, really don't understand Americans.

What works in many places, will not work here. We are not European, and we have not been British subjects for over 200 years.

Also, you have a strange obsession with what goes on here. It's borderline creepy.  

To be honest, I find people going on about couture they don’t live in, immensely ignorant and irritating. I don’t care how many media sources people read or how many qualifications they have, you cannot know a place until you live there.

A lot of posters base their knowledge on books and old-time beliefs and articles.
Me, not so much.  I like to use experience as my guide and not only read one publication and think that’s the oracle.

Well, now you are bringing up Claude Levi-Strauss and his theory of structural/functional methodology in anthropology.  It's an interesting dichotomy: the researcher can go live within a culture (functionalism) and know the culture from within, but lose his awareness of timeless points by which all cultures can be compared; or, he can stand apart from the culture (structuralism), and maintain his objectivity, but perhaps be less sensitive to the nuances of the culture.

So, eds, you are a functionalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss