Image 01 Image 03

Relax, Trump was being Trump on gun control

Relax, Trump was being Trump on gun control

Floating ideas, but it’s a toss-up which ones stick

Wednesday, Trump met with a bipartisan group of legislators to discuss yet-to-be-drafted legislation meant to address the ongoing scourge of school shootings.

Hoping to hash out which policies and current legislation could be lumped into one, comprehensive, passable bill, discussion ensued, some in front of the media.

Several sound-bites from the meeting have been plucked out as though they’re indicative of some greater scheme.

Namely, this one:

Before anyone sets their hair on fire and cracks open their prepper seed kits, it’s worth noting that gun-violence restraining orders (GVRO) or the principle of GVROs were being discussed broadly. David French spelled out how GVROs work in fabulous detail here:

What if, however, there was an evidence-based process for temporarily denying a troubled person access to guns? What if this process empowered family members and others close to a potential shooter, allowing them to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something”? I’ve written that the best line of defense against mass shootings is an empowered, vigilant citizenry. There is a method that has the potential to empower citizens even more, when it’s carefully and properly implemented.

It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away.

Yes, I understand that if any Democrat said “take the guns first and deal with due process later”, the whole right-leaning world would be up in arms, sparking the next great Civil War. But it’s exceedingly silly to ignore the fact that for better or worse, this is Trump being Trump — throwing out a handful of ideas and seeing which ones stick.

Nevertheless, we see this reaction every.single.time.

Pull quotes out of context. Pretend ideas produced in discussion are super cereal. OUTRAGE. ALL THE OUTRAGE. PANIC. Pray for visit from SMOD. Repeat at least 19 times each hour.

It’s tiresome. And annoying. Not to mention the fact that it detracts from any substantive discussion.

But back to the meeting. Trump also advised saving concealed carry reciprocity for a separate bill and out of any comprehensive gun reform legislation, believing its inclusion would tank the bill in the Senate. He did not say, contrary to much I’ve seen, that he doesn’t support concealed carry reciprocity.

In recent talks, concealed carry reciprocity was tied to the House version of the “Fix NICS” bill, which deals with strengthening the background check system.

The Toomey-Manchin Bill, a Senate bill designed to strengthen background checks was mentioned in the discussions, and may end up lumped into the larger bill. Numerous attempts to pass Toomey-Manchin have failed.

As for changes to public access to bump stocks and other rapid-fire modifiers, Trump said he’ll take care of those via Executive Order. Immediately following the Florida school shooting, Trump asked the DOJ to propose regulations on bump stocks and like modifiers.

Last year, the Washington Post reported the Trump administration was quietly loosening a handful of gun regulations:

But, with less public attention, the Trump administration has eased some gun regulations in recent months. Among them: The Army Corps of Engineers has filed notice in a court case that it is reconsidering a ban on carrying firearms on its land; the Justice Department narrowed its definition of fugitives barred from purchasing weapons; and the Interior Department lifted a federal ban on hunting with lead ammunition in national parks.

A White House official denied any deliberate effort to play down the change to the background-checks policy and declined to comment on that change or others related to guns.

…One month into the Trump administration, the Republican-led Congress turned to a rarely used law that allows it to quickly unravel the prior president’s last-minute regulations. The House and Senate revoked the Social Security rule, along with several environmental regulations imposed in the waning days of the Democratic administration. The move was opposed by gun-control advocates and cheered by an unusual coalition that included the NRA, the American Civil Liberties Union and some advocates for the mentally ill.

Some gun-control activists said they were not aware of the Trump bill-signing.

Fox has a handy synopsis of Wednesdays’ discussions here:

Full discussion here:


As I was saying…


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Paul In Sweden | February 28, 2018 at 8:12 pm

No worries. Trump talks to the dems, a few photo ops, looks like he is bring the two sides together. He knows there is no way in hell anti-gun legislation is going to pass either in the house or the senate just before midterms. I would find it remarkable if anything even made it out of committee.

Trump believes in playing water-balloons.

He just fills them with gasoline. 🙂

It’s truly amazing what an absolute master this guy is at pulling the rug out from under the left’s hot-button issues. He accepts their bluff and ups the ante. He knows it’s the ‘issues’ they want, not solutions. His amnesty offer was the most obvious example, exposing for all but the most blind to see that it is the votes of illegals they want, not their right to live here legally.

With each passing month, I’m more & more impressed by what he does. I couldn’t care less about his tweets.

    Valerie in reply to Daiwa. | February 28, 2018 at 11:30 pm

    Oh, I love those tweets. But then, I like watching a cat play with a laser pointer, too.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Valerie. | March 1, 2018 at 4:32 pm


      RE: “He knows it’s the ‘issues’ they want, not solutions.”

    Rich88 in reply to Daiwa. | March 1, 2018 at 8:38 am

    FINALLY, someone else that ‘gets’ Trumps thinking. Loved it when he said, ‘Yeah, put Dianes idea in the bill’. Surprised he didn’t burst-out laughing. On a brighter note, I think that was the first orgasm Feinstein’s had in 70 years.

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Daiwa. | March 1, 2018 at 9:20 am

    Do you really think people don’t notice? There is a reason why virtually nobody did a 2nd deal with Trump in his whole business career.

    In the extremely unlikely possibility that he persists, it is you guys that will finally understand his duplicity. Maybe you should feel just a little uncomfortable – like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis (apologies to Tom Lehrer).

    Remember, more than half the country voted against him. He hasn’t changed any minds on either side. Have you even listened to the democratic politicians or the liberal columnists? Of course not. So I will enlighten you. They are saying they are extremely skeptical, but they do have to listen to him since he is the president. If nothing comes of it (and nothing will), by next week this story will be wrapping virtual fish in the virtual newspapers.

      Be ACCURATE Yellow-Troll.

      Remember, more than half the country voted against him.

      False. More than half the individuals who VOTED voted against him (which is normal in pluralistic election).

      Further, if you want to talk “popular vote,” exclude California’s lop-sided differential, and President Trump WON the popular vote. The People’s Republic of Failifornia changing their “election” system so that there’s no “Republican” on the top-line candidate election in the November voting saw to that. There is literally no reason at all for Republicans to waste the trip to the ballot-booth, as they now often have no candidate remaining in the race.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Chuck Skinner. | March 1, 2018 at 1:57 pm

        OK, disenfranchise California. That is a hell of an argument.

        More than 50% of the citizens who voted for President in 2016 voted for Hillary Clinton. You slice and dice it any way you want. You can claim there were illegals; without proof. Facts are facts. There are no alternative facts.

        I am not claiming she won. Obviously not. But Trump doesn’t have to lose many voters to become untenable in 2020. Is he losings them? Quoting the polls is a waste. But they showed up in Alabama. They will show up in 2018. They will have IDs. They will be motivated.

        The blue states are solid. We will be organized in FL, NC, WI, PA, MI. Don’t need to win them all. Just 2 or 3.

        If Trump budges on guns (I said if), your whole coalitions begins to disintegrate. Nothing to argue. It will happen or it won’t.

        Frankly I don’t give a damn about the gun issue. Nobody is going to take your guns. It will take generations to change the culture. But Trump is evil and the sooner he loses power the better for all of us.

        He is not making America Great. Look at Russia. Look at the Middle East. Look at Afghanistan & Pakistan. Look at China. The EU is pulling away. Wake up.

I see several problems with the GVRO. First, how long would it take to obtain one. Weeks? Months? With the courts backed up as they are, it could take too long. And what would a GVRO cost? Hundreds of dollars? Thousands? Once obtained, how would it be enforced? Will the police search the respondents home and vehicle and confiscate any firearms found? Thirdly, what’s to prevent the “respondent” from simply buying a gun on the street like criminals do? I just don’t see this working in real life.

    It makes sense when you realize their foremost goal is take away as many guns as possible. Taking away some guns is better than none.

    A GVRO is simply BS.

    Look, every state in the Union has a law allowing for emergency psychiatric holds of people who are demonstrably an immediate threat to themselves or others, due to suspected mental illness. You do not even need a court order for that. And, should a family member wish, he can secure an order of commitment from a judge, if it is applicable.

    Here is an interesting factoid. In Florida, all that it takes to get a temporary protective order against another person, typically a spouse or significant other, is for a person to present a sworn affidavit that they fear the other person to a judge. And, under law that process is expedited to only a few hours. Some judges may require that specific examples of behavior be included before the order is issued. This process does not even require a police report and no investigation of the allegations. Also, generally, upon service of the order, the recipient is required to surrender any firearms which that person possesses. As if this somehow makes any difference. After giving the Sheriff his guns, there is nothing to stop a man, or woman, from walking into Dick’s Sporting Goods, buying an aluminum baseball bat, going to a location where the person who was granted the protective order is and beating the person like a pinata until that person is deceased.

    Things like a GVRO are simply backdoor means of imposing gun control. There are already time tested procedures in place to deal with someone’s feeling that another person is dangerous. And, if the person is dangerous enough to forcibly confiscate firearms from that person, then that person should also be held for psychiatric evaluation.

      Marcus in reply to Mac45. | February 28, 2018 at 10:08 pm

      Mac45, yes indeed, yes indeed. As does every other state with a Baker Act, 302 commitment, or whatever the hell else the nomenclature is in any given state.

      Valerie in reply to Mac45. | February 28, 2018 at 11:33 pm

      Perhaps what we really need is just a little education about what to do under the laws we have.

      malclave in reply to Mac45. | March 1, 2018 at 1:37 am

      After giving the Sheriff his guns, there is nothing to stop a man, or woman, from walking into Dick’s Sporting Goods, buying an aluminum baseball bat

      That’s okay, as long as it’s not a gun, especially one of those super-scary assault weapons with mounts for chainsaw bayonets (sold separately).

    dmi60ex in reply to snopercod. | March 2, 2018 at 11:24 am


    Maybe we could get a dossier together to make up stuff that people could take to the Court to get their GVRO.
    We could sell it online and add some things about how the guy was beating up hookers for peeing on a bed.
    A combination of Capitalism and Democrat grit

He’s not winning a lot of hearts and minds of gun owners with this. I expect we’ll see a big drop in his ratings.
Go read a few gun sites.

    The point of this post, though, is that all that hair-on-fire craziness is premature. Trump’s tossing out ideas as he always does . . . and it means just about as much as it always does: he’s feeling out the issue, but will stick to his #MAGA agenda (which does not include revoking anyone’s #2a rights).

    Now, if he starts some actual gun confiscation plan (which he never will), then I’m on board with the outrage. Until then, though . . . just chill.

      alaskabob in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 28, 2018 at 9:47 pm

      However, I am reminded of Will Rogers and that in Congress, “every joke becomes a law and every law becomes a joke”. “Mr. Moth meet Mr. Flame…Mr. Flame meet Mr. Moth.”

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to alaskabob. | March 1, 2018 at 4:37 pm

        Fuzzy and Kemberlee Get it!

        Trump is blasting a fire extinguisher on the criminal Leftists’ methods and goals.

        Trump knows better than to give them any thing more by doing what he, a long-time NRA member probably wishes he could do to them. But he knows the “art” of deals.

      I think you are wrong. Trump does not and never had the back of “2nd amendment people.”

      Matt_SE in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 1, 2018 at 8:52 am

      Even talk of this makes me uncomfortable. Because by the time you’re sure he’s serious about selling us out, it’ll be too late.

      If you think Trump won’t sell out his supporters to achieve personal gains, explain why he endorsed John McCain, Luther Strange, and now Mitt Romney.

      Not one of those three losers can be called “Making America Great Again.”

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Matt_SE. | March 1, 2018 at 9:37 am

        As the defense lawyer Lt. Greenwald says to one of the defendants in the Caine Mutiny: Ah, you’re learning, Willie!

        You have been enjoying yourself at the expense of democrats (maybe the country). Maybe you shouldn’t enjoy yourself quite so much. You bought Trump by allowing his corruption and with a special provision in the tax law tailored to his businesses. But Trump doesn’t stay bought.

        I think this is BS. But sooner or later it won’t be. The next election is virtually a lock for republicans. But if it turns out close, you better watch Trump like an eagle you haven’t shot.

          Halcyon Daze in reply to YellowGrifterInChief. | March 1, 2018 at 11:33 am

          Is there no end to the stupid shit you’ll post? For cryin’ out loud, it’s so predictably wrong. You adopt these beliefs ’cause believing is so much easier than thinkin’, and thinkin’ makes your head hurt.

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Matt_SE. | March 1, 2018 at 4:39 pm

        Trump knows the true right.

        He knew his endorsements wouldn’t cause any of his supporters to vote for those RINOs.

        However, it makes the RINOs “feel” better as they’re slowly being taken down……

“Relax, Trump was being Trump on gun control”

Trump is trying to sucker somebody. Some may be convinced that it’s the Left that he is after, but I’m not yet convinced of that.

Interesting. He’s flipped the conversation once again. Of course I’m not surprised, but I like to see him do it.

To the news that a disturbed individual has shot up a school, the reactions of the gun-grabbers are—

—we need closer regulation of schools (which could mean expansion of or tighter restrictions on the “gun-free zone”, or prescriptions of which government-controlled and authorized persons should be allowed to operate there—i.e., official guards)

—we need more regulation of the hardware (what harmless features can we claim have something to do with “assault-something” and can try to ban, or which guns fire which bullets at what speeds, which cause one sort of lethal wound vs. some other sort of lethal wound, etc)

Both approaches are inefficient at best and futile at worst. Schools themselves aren’t the problem. For every school which suffers an atrocity, there are tens of thousands which don’t. For every gun used in an atrocity, there are tens of thousands of identical guns which aren’t. Concentration on schools or guns will certainly lose the problem somewhere down below the noise floor.

Trump turns it into consideration of the perpetrator rather than consideration of the victim or the tools. From the standpoint of public safety, this is very sensible. There are far fewer homicidal madmen in the country than there are guns (even scary black plastic guns) or schools. No government program or bureau is needed to find them—as the Florida disaster showed, the public knows perfectly well (at least sometimes) who the problem is going to be. And, once a person likely to be a homicidal madman has been properly identified, he can also be prevented from harming anyone with a car, a box of matches, a sword, poisoned food, mail bombs, etc.

Now if my analysis of the gun-grabbers is correct, they’ll hate it. They are not concerned with public safety. The are obsessed with public disarmament. Isolating madmen will not advance that agenda. It won’t even damage the 2nd Amendment, as no reasonable person would claim that “the people” who have the right to keep and bear arms would include outright madmen. So the antis will want to reject any such proposal.

    With some 50,000 schools in the US, there have only been about 25 mass school shooting in the last 25 years. So, as you note it is not really a problem. Except when one of these incidents occur, the liberal Progressive media and the liberal Progressive politicians hype it to sound as if this is a weekly occurrence and no child is safe.

    So, this is how reality works. If you attempt to claim the these types of incidents are a REAL problem, then those responsible for the schools; i.e. the school boards, have a responsibility to secure the schools. If they choose not to do so, and a mass shooting incident occurs, then they are responsible for the outcome of that incident.

    Don’t want screening of people entering a school? Fine. Don’t want armed, trained security personnel to interdict ah invader? Fine. Don’t want to limit the introduction of firearms and other weapons into a school? Again, fine. But, when someone introduces a firearm into a school and then shoots a bunch of children, you don’t get to complain or have any input into means of preventing such incursions. Why? Because we tried it your way and it was a failure. The child casualties are simply the collateral damage associated with the choices made by those in charge of the schools.

    Now identifying your “homicidal madman”. Unless you have a diagnoses that a person is an imminent danger to himself and others, due to mental illness, AND you obtain a court ordered commitment, you can not arbitrarily limit a person’s rights and privileges. You can not incarcerate a person because he MAY commit a crime. This is not the movie universe of the Minority Report. Even if you limit the infringement to firearms, what is to stop a person from using a motor vehicle or explosives or incendiaries? Maybe that highly trained armed security person. maybe a blast wall or buffer zone. Maybe a simple x-ray machine or metal detector. You have to be prepared to take direct action, to stop an attack, at the point of attack.

      Noonan in reply to Mac45. | March 1, 2018 at 7:51 am

      I propose that every school in the U.S. should be as secure from intruders as the Capitol building where the congress convenes.

    The main problem with the schools are the lazy teachers, administrators and the sue happy slip and fall lawyers . They don’t want to to discipline or can’t, because of the aforementioned lawyers. Another thing which needs to be taken care of, is the wholesale rampant forced drugging with psychotropic drugs, of the male students for alleged hyperactivity.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom_swift. | March 1, 2018 at 4:43 pm

    Remind everyone of this historic mass murder – and there wasn’t a gun in site for the crime committed.

    “Cook massacres seven at Wisconsin home Frank Lloyd Wright built for his mistress”

Just another case of Trump working the room. Praise to God, Hillary does not matter.

I learned rather quickly and soon into his first term to always wait for what President Trump actually does. I never go by what President Trump says anymore. What he says and does are two different things — unless it’s a pledge or a promise to do a certain thing and then he generally does what he says pretty much every time. He talks to himself a lot it seems, and he also sends pointed messages, very publicly so we all get to see them, to people that know what he’s talking about and he knows what he’s talking about and to whom he’s messaging – but no one else does which usually leaves us millions of people scratching our heads, but not the intended recipient(s) who understand perfectly well. It’s aggravating, and it’s also just the way he is.

Accordingly, I shall wait until President Trump takes some concrete action(s) before I decide whether or not he’s a gun-grabbing enemy of law-abiding Americans and our US Constitution or not. I don’t care about ‘bump stocks’ or whatever, but, needless to say, if President Trump bans any specific firearms at all [like, say – “assault rifles”] then he won’t ever see another vote from me, and I will personally work tirelessly to see him primaried and run out of town on a rail come mid-2020.

    alaskabob in reply to FlatFoot. | February 28, 2018 at 10:22 pm

    The old saying…”Only Nixon could go to China”. Maybe “Only a Republican could achieve the Left’s dream of major gun control”.

    It is, at times, like being on the Titanic and worrying about icebergs and all I hear is “relax we have plenty of champagne and a whole bunch of new ice on the deck to chill it.”

      Matt_SE in reply to alaskabob. | March 1, 2018 at 8:49 am

      Personally, I look back on Nixon’s opening of China as a bad thing. Look at all the power and wealth they now have. Now they’re a serious threat. We should’ve left them as a communist backwater.

        alaskabob in reply to Matt_SE. | March 1, 2018 at 10:14 am

        Lenin said the capitalists would sell the rope they would be hanged eith. We sold and let them steal the technology to do the same. The Middle Kingdom is now an invigorated juggernaut…Enter The Drsgon.

“Floating ideas, but it’s a toss-up which ones stick”


Ideation leads to action. NONE of them should have been voiced. It’s not “ideas” that are “floating”.

I know that I wouldn’t “float” such ideas before cameras and opposition pols, because I fundamentally eschew them.

They would not enter my mind.

But here’s what’s ALREADY “stuck”…

1. you GOP guys are afraid of the NRA (ha, ha…kidding [but not really, since this is one of my favorite passive-aggressive lil’ tricks])

2. “Hey, all that ‘due process’ stuff is for loooooooosers! Let’s DO something…!!!”

3. Sure, I’ll ban bump-stocks. Hell, if Obama can do unconstitutional stuff over the heads of Congress, I damn sure can!”

4. A whole class of law-abiding people can be stripped of their right to defend themselves effectively. “They’re just too young! Oh, and, hell no, I would never think of doing that to anyone else. Why do you even ask?”

5. “Oh, and, hey, those HIGH-CAPACITY clippie thingies…just like bump-stockes. Nobody need those!”

T-rump ripped the carpet out from under the NRA and 2nd Amendment advocates with this shit.

But don’t worry… He’s a stable genius. Very.

    Vancomycin in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2018 at 7:39 am

    “Ideation leads to action. NONE of them should have been voiced. It’s not “ideas” that are “floating”.

    I know that I wouldn’t “float” such ideas before cameras and opposition pols, because I fundamentally eschew them.

    They would not enter my mind.”

    I hate to say this, but Rags is right about this. You don’t “float” out ideas as potential solutions unless you’re okay with one or more of them actually being implemented.

    Also, he’s right about the gist of what “stuck”. Trump *did* trash the NRA, in his own way.

    He *did* toss reciprocity on the trash in this talk. And he did it in front of the cameras, so no-one can say he didn’t.

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2018 at 8:10 am

    Before rags virtue signals himself into a fit, let’s examine HIS commitment to the 2A. If he had gotten his way on Nov 8. Hillary would be president, Gorsuch would be out and another RBG would be in, a proposed ban on bump stocks would be replaced by a proposed ban on the 2A (and she would have the court to deliver it). That’s what he was willing to let happen to defeat Trump. As usual, rags has no solutions to offer, just self serving anger and a ‘gotcha’. Just as during the election, he is long on ideology and short on tactics. We are all united here on what we want to achieve, but some of us realize that you need to win elections to get there, and some don’t. Sometimes that means you have to go with what you have, not what you want to have. Otto von Bismarck said:
    “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”
    Unlike rags, he has a record of achievement to support his view.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 1, 2018 at 8:47 am

      More of your same old bullshit.

      You cannot defend your man-crush on point.

      You default to your bankrupt MO of deflect and attack.

      Edward in reply to VaGentleman. | March 1, 2018 at 9:04 am

      Just because Rags was absolutely wrong on the election, and has been wrong on many other issues, doesn’t mean he isn’t correct this time. IF nothing else, Trump is providing encouragement to the Democrats to try and turn squishy Republicans (and don’t tell me there are none) to vote with them on Democrat gun control ideas.

Sure, nice try. He asked DiFi to include an “assault weapon ban” into her bill as well. My biggest fear always was that he would screw his supporters rather than have Ivanka be embarrassed at a cocktail party. Now she can be proud of daddy when she has a sleep over with Paris Hilton.

Donald Trump’s biggest flaw: He is not that bright

Donald Trump has many serious flaws, including incorrigible dishonesty, rampant narcissism, contempt for women and a fashion sense that makes him think that hairstyle of his is flattering. But nothing compares to his most prominent, crippling and incurable defect: He’s dimmer than a 5-watt bulb.

    mailman in reply to gad-fly. | March 1, 2018 at 9:04 am

    And yet he still beat the HRC machine, all the democrat supporting liberal media, the GOPe, all those PRETEND Republicans and all those so called super serious polling companies who said he had no chance in hell of becoming President.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA..fuck you liberals really do live in laalaa land!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA.

      Trump won not because he was that good, but because Hillary was that bad. Yes, I’d rather see him as President than Hillary, but that’s not saying much.

      And I hope you don’t kiss your momma with that mouth.

Subotai Bahadur | March 1, 2018 at 1:29 am

1) If you are not a Leftist, for decades you have been used to being betrayed by those supposedly on your side. Assumptions of betrayal are rational, perhaps not accurate in every case, but rational first assumptions.

2) With the rule of law not operating with either party, assuming that electoral politics actually affects policy may not be accurate.

3) If we are not going to be able to vote our way out of the situation our country is in, then the 2nd Amendment, de jure or de facto will assume critical importance.

4) Any real attempt by the Left, with or without their GOPe allies, to eliminate it, either de jure or de facto will be an irrevocable step. And Darwin will take the hindmost.

We seem to continually follow the same pattern.
1. Something bad happens because the laws were not enforced.
2. Panic legislation crates new laws.
3.New laws are used to abuse lawful gun owners but are otherwise incorrectly or not enforced on those for who it was intended.
4. Another crisis appears based on laws not being enforced. Lather rinse, repeat.
How about a new concept that breaks the old paradigm?
1. Enforce old laws such as forcing all states to enter all required data into NICS database.
2. Understand that teachers, just like any other lawful citizen in this country can get a gun as well as a CCW.
3. Allow teachers who want to to carry on school campus, but those who carry do so without other’s knowledge.
4. Provide extra training at school expense to ensure carrying teachers are adequately qualified with annual refresher training.
5. Understand that should an event occur, teachers do not form hunter killer groups stalking the shooter, rather that sit tight protecting their class and use the weapon when the shooter confronts them and when the teacher has the advantage of surprise and home field.
6. Advertise the fact that some teachers are armed, but we won;t tell you who.
7. Pass a law prohibiting the use of the shooter’s name on all news media thus assuring no remembrance of the shooter for their actions.
Do this and the kids will be protected, the shooter loses incentive to kill, and the shooter is forced to face unknown consequences. With one or two successes and shootings will cease for lack of motivation and absolute presence of immediate consequence.

    snopercod in reply to Cleetus. | March 1, 2018 at 6:30 am

    That’s a good plan with one flaw. Most teachers today are women and most women hate guns and will refuse to carry.

      Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | March 1, 2018 at 6:35 am

      That’s fine, they don’t have to carry if they don’t want to. But there’ll be a pay bump for those who do. A nice little bonus to look forward to, and nobody else need know. Watch them line up for the special training required. Well, not line up, because then people would know, but discreetly arrange lessons at the second-closest range, so they won’t run into anyone they know.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Milhouse. | March 1, 2018 at 9:55 am

        Where is the money going to come from? Are you going to pass a bill or take it from something else?

        BTW, I think you can kiss reciprocity goodbye for the foreseeable future. Not because Trump said something about it, but because it will be a very hot potato and vulnerable dems not have cover.

      inspectorudy in reply to snopercod. | March 1, 2018 at 1:03 pm

      In this period in our society for you to make such a biased ignorant statement as you just made about women is just remarkable! I just went to the huge Atlanta gun show last weekend and there were hundreds of women there buying and looking at guns. There is a reason that Samuel Colt called his pistol the “Great Equalizer”. It allows a 90-pound woman to humble a 300-pound man with one hand! There will be plenty of women who will step forward and overcome any fears about guns and their uses.

    Milhouse in reply to Cleetus. | March 1, 2018 at 6:31 am

    7. Pass a law prohibiting the use of the shooter’s name on all news media thus assuring no remembrance of the shooter for their actions.

    No, don’t pass such a law, because passing it would brazenly violate the first amendment, and thus the oath of office of everyone involved. But propose it. Introduce it into Congress. There’s nothing that says “Congrefs shall confider no law”. And watch the heads explode. To all remonstrations calmly give back all the same answers they give us about the second amendment. “It’s for the children”, “If it saves even one life…”, “It’s outdated”, etc. And when they sputter even more at that (because they will not recognize the irony until their faces are shoved in it), reply “you’re willing to ignore the second amendment, so why not the first?” Force them to confront the hypocrisy. Then withdraw the bill.

    Edward in reply to Cleetus. | March 1, 2018 at 9:12 am

    There is one glaring error in the listing of the “pattern”:

    “3.New laws are used to abuse lawful gun owners but are otherwise incorrectly or not enforced on those for who it was intended.”

    Assuming that these laws are actually intended to do that which is advertised, and that the “targets” of the new laws are actually the miserable POS who perpetrate these heinous criminal acts is essentially in error. The Leftists (both Democrat and Republican) are the proponents of gun control laws, they do not believe any individuals are responsible for their criminal actions. That is why they take aim at firearms and the lawful gun owners and their rights.

“Now, if he starts some actual gun confiscation plan (which he never will), then I’m on board with the outrage. Until then, though . . . just chill.”

Chill!!! Just wait until the ratbags play some of these comments non-stop during the next election cycle. Republicans will be lucky to keep the keys to the bathroom, let alone to the House and Senate.

You might think a guy who has been subjected to endless accusations, from many so-called “experts”, including that he is mentally ill, would understand the potential hazards of allowing such flimsy claims to be the basis for denying people their Constitutional rights. I guess not.

David French wrote about how GVROs should work. His column is being promoted as if what he wrote is exactly the way all the bills being submitted are written. Unfortunately that is not true, and we should not expect deep blue states like CA to implement these laws narrowly. Not to mention establishing someone’s rights may be taken without due process first is an open invitation to the Left to “expand” on the law to the detriment of individual rights and freedom.

Kimberlee, as supporting evidence you include a tweet from Jay Cost in your post,

Reminder that Trump does this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. It’s even in the Art of the Deal.

— Jay Cost (@JayCostTWS) February 28, 2018

He has apparently deleted this tweet now (

Do you happen to have a screenshot of it, or any idea why he might have deleted it?

    Still no closer to finding out what it was he actually tweeted (what was shown in the pic, which we can’t see now) or why it was that he deleted it. Usually when someone memory-holes one of their own tweets, there’s a reason for it.

Here’s my problem with the “Relax, Trump’s only bluffing” view:

To succeed, it requires Democrats to be unhinged. I have a longstanding rule that a plan which requires the enemy to fail isn’t really a plan at all. You cannot count on the enemy doing the wrong thing.
What happens if Dems take a look at their declining poll numbers and decide to agree to Trump’s proposals? What is he going to do then, tell them he was only joking?

    mailman in reply to Matt_SE. | March 1, 2018 at 9:00 am

    Then they are welcome to craft legislation in Congress and the Senate.

    Of course we all know they will never actually do that because that would require Democrats to actually DO something for a change (apart from moan like little bitches on heat).

As for my thoughts on this post,

Relax, Trump was being Trump on gun control

Well, yes. He’s being a northeast progressive big-government populist with statist-authoritarian leanings. He was fully supportive of the last “assault weapon” ban – his recent conversion to being NRA-friendly was always suspect.

And then there’s this?

”As for changes to public access to bump stocks and other rapid-fire modifiers, Trump said he’ll take care of those via Executive Order.

Oh. Ok. We’re apparently fine with imperial presidents ruling via executive order now. Alrighty then. Carry on. Intellectual and consistency is so 2016 anyway.

I’m glad we’re all on board with “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” now too.

Next come IVROs. Internet Violence Restraining Orders. If someone says something hurtful on social media, you can have them temporarily banned – by the government – from using the internet. After all, “words are violence!” Armed SWAT teams can come shoot their dogs and confiscate their computers and smart phones. Remove their first amendment rights first; think about due process later.

Bill of Rights, Schmill of Rights. We don’t need no stinkin’ constitution. We got Trump.

Kimberlee Kaye: Relax, Trump was being Trump on gun control

Sure. Trump says for the police to take people’s guns without due process, and you defend him. Of course you do.

NRA Warnings Have Come True: A President Wants To Unilaterally Disarm Americans. “For years, the National Rifle Association has been warning gun-loving Americans of a president who will take away their firearms, no matter what the Second Amendment says. On Wednesday, that conservative nightmare became a reality when the current Republican U.S. president, Donald Trump, proposed taking away people’s guns, even without the legal right to do so.”

You never know exactly where Trump stands until something concrete (maybe a wall?) comes in the end. Trump is a con-man, a dealer, an actor, a liar and a bullshitter — but in many cases he has good instincts and comes out with the right thing in the end. He’s liable to say just about anything that he thinks will go over well at the moment, or to see what sort of reaction it gets, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate what he intends. His style confounds both his enemies and supporters, and you have to wait for the results to see if he’s screwed you, or given you what you want.

    alaskabob in reply to Bisley. | March 1, 2018 at 1:08 pm

    Just as long as Trump doesn’t wind up in a real reality show “The Constitution” as an apprentice.

My feelings on Trump’s comments? He is Donald Trump. He makes all kinds of statements. But, with the exception of bombing Syria, he has not operated outside the restraints of his office.So, he appears to be a sort of law and order kind of guy.

As to Trump being Pro-2nd Amendment, that is debatable. Personally, I think that Trump is not very ideological. He does seem to be anti-illegal immigration, except as illegal immigration affects his MAGA economic goals. He does not seem to be pro-life, unless pushing a pro-life agenda advances his economic goals. In other words, he is rather narrowly focused on advancing this nation economically, not socially. That being said, Trump operates on both a tactical and strategic level. He plays the buffoon, but manages to advance his agenda anyway. He will say things designed to deflect media criticism of him, largely in order to remain focused on his economic concerns. Would he trade amnesty, at least limited amnesty, for economic gains? Probably. Would he agree to further limits on 2nd Amendment freedoms, in order to advance his economic agenda? Again, probably.

However, it is necessary to remember that Trump usually works strictly within the parameters of his office. Any further infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, in this country, is going to have to come from the Congress. One thing to remember about the anti-gun push to ban assault weapons, is that the gun-grabbers really do not view this type of weapon as a serious threat to the populous of this nation. Why? Because the Democrat leadership in school boards all across this country have done literally nothing to secure schools against the use of one of these weapon within a school. Remember after the Sandy Hook shootings, all the promises to harden schools? To increase their security? To make sure that a person could not simple walk into a school, with a rifle and shoot the place up? What happened? Nothing happened. Even with this being an midterm election year, nothing significant will happen this year, either.

Keep an eye on the actions of Congress here, but don’t lose any sleep over this debate.

inspectorudy | March 1, 2018 at 1:13 pm

If we can back off far enough to see this whole debate for its logic, we will see the absurdity of it all. The very first thing we will notice is the word “Law”. Pass one or make one or modify one it is still a law. Who obeys laws? Good citizens! When any criminal commits a murder he is already breaking one of God’s laws. Anything after that is just another law being broken. The old saying “Laws are for the lawful” rings true when research finds most shootings are committed with illegal guns. Look at the most restrictive states that have gun laws from hell but they also have the highest shooting rates. To me, the answer is the database of law enforcement. We need to stop this “Protect the bad kids in school” nonsense by not reporting their penchants for crime and start putting in every episode that any age person commits. If that database is accurate and up to date then many of the future perps will be stopped before they can commit another mass shooting. There also needs to be a Flagging” system that throws up a red flag when someone amasses a certain amount of infractions even though no one infraction is by itself a felony. This Cruz guy would have been stopped many months before his horrible spree had this been done.

Unfortunately Trump being Trump means … he shoots his mouth off in ways that show he has hardly no idea about the issues are law … ie: take the guns first and do due process later. I don’t think it’s “stream of consciousness” talking or whatever … I think he’s showing us his ignorance and lack of self control.

    Ex parte restraining orders and injunctions where the due process comes AFTER the injunction and restraining order issues are common practice in USA. Maybe you are the one who doesn’t know so much or is not so smart.

      garybritt: Ex parte restraining orders and injunctions where the due process comes AFTER the injunction and restraining order issues are common practice in USA.

      Um, warrants and restraining orders require presenting evidence before a judge, part of due process. This is distinct from the police deciding on their own to confiscate guns from people on their own authority.

President Trump was clearly thinking of due process as a reference to a trial, with discovery and a jury etc. That is why he said it would take too long. People here and Lawyers understand that due process merely means notice and an opportunity to be heard and can be accomplished quickly. Further ex parte restraining orders and injunctions with the notice and opportunity to be heard coming AFTER the restraining order issues are common in this country for hundreds of years and our rights and freedoms have survived.

Finally it was clear Trump was speaking of people who can be shown to be imminently dangerous to themselves or others and not just any person as many commenters imply. He specifically referenced the crazy violent parkland shooter in his comment. Trump was just speaking in non lawyer terms about his support for gun violence restraining orders where an ex parte order can be had in proper cases.

IMHO, I see nothing wrong with, in general, raising age limit to 21 for purchase of long guns and nothing wrong with properly written temporary gun violence restraining orders.

    Mac45 in reply to garybritt. | March 2, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    We currently have temporary restraining orders for potential gun violence. They are used all of the time. The problem with them is that they are temporary and it is necessary to actually show that the potential for violence is both real, a near certainty and that it is most likely to be directed at a single target. Otherwise, you would be forced to incarcerate a person for potentially committing a crime in the future, in order to protect society from something which has not happened yet. Minority Report, again. While some countries [the USSR, NAZI Germany and several banana republics come to mind] have done that, we tend to find that offensive in the US.

    Raising the age for purchase of long guns is both stupid and unconstitutional. While a case can be made for restricting the 2nd Amendment where minors, people under 18 yoa, is concerned, arbitrarily stripping an adult of a constitutional right, based upon age, is simply not constitutional.

      I disagree. Modern gun violence restraining orders do not already exist except in California. Florida will be adopting one soon. They do not require finding a specific crime in advance (minority report) They provide a way for those who are both mentally ill and violent to have their gun rights restricted in a timely manor. Comparisons to dictatorships are just hysterical over reactions and do nothing to advance your arguments.

      You assert age 21 for gun purchase is unconstitutional. That is your opinion and not one that is likely shared by Supreme Court. Hellen allows it for handguns and 21 for long guns is no different.