Does anyone know where President Trump stands on any issue? Does Trump know where he stands on any issue? Despite President Trump's campaign platform to support the Second Amendment, he made the comment, "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. Take the guns first, go through due process second." And, President Trump threw his support behind the current Manchin-Toomey bill and urged Congress to pass comprehensive gun control legislation.
On Thursday, NRA-ILA executive director Chris Cox met with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. According to a tweet sent by Cox, both Trump and Pence support due process for gun owners, aren't interested in gun control, and support the Second Amendment.
“We all want safe schools, mental health reform and to keep guns away from dangerous people,” Cox wrote. “POTUS & VPOTUS support the Second Amendment, strong due process and don’t want gun control.”
— Chris Cox (@ChrisCoxNRA) March 2, 2018
While everyone keeps referring to "wants", no one has referred to the Constitution to determine what the limitations upon government are to reconcile their "wants" with the authorized powers granted to the federal government. Instead, politicians and Trump open their mouths before engaging their brain to salivate while talking about violating the rights of the people against the Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution for the united States of America. The frothing of the mouth comes when contemplating violating the Second Amendment.
Yes, we all want safe schools. However, has anyone determined what has made our schools unsafe? Back in the day, which means before 1990, there was not any student or parent in the area where I live that questioned the safety of the schools; the schools were considered safe. Students went to school with nary a thought of encountering an evil individual intent on senseless murder in the hallways. Moreover, not one individual has questioned the usurpation of the federal government concerning education of our children, which then spills over into school safety. Since education of children is not a constitutionally authorized power of the federal government, the issue of school safety should not be either.
In the bigger picture, not one politician has addressed the federal mandate of schools designated "gun free zones," which has actually made schools less safe. No two States are the same. Each has different needs for legislation depending on numerous variables; therefore, a "one size fits all" piece of unconstitutional federal legislation addressing "school safety" would be disparaging to some States. The local school district and/or government is the best determiner of school safety, not the State or federal one; it is also in line with the constitution.
When it comes to mental health of individuals, family members hold the responsibility for the care and management of individuals suffering mental illness. It befalls to the family of the individual suffering a mental health condition to determine whether that individual should be disarmed. If so, it is the responsibility of the family. Again, the Constitution has not bestowed the power of health care, health care insurance, or the care of the mentally ill to the federal government. That being said, the question has to be asked, "what mental health reform is the government considering?"
If by mental health reform it means the government would limit those who have mental health issues from owning/possessing firearms, again, this is an over-reach by the government. It is a slippery slope and a recipe for disaster combined indeed, when the federal government is the determiner of what constitutes mental illness in order to infringe on an individual's God-given unalienable rights. With the addition of Oppositional Defiant Disorder or ODD being added to the DSM-V, it offers the government a category of mental illness with which to label constitutionalists, those who question the legitimacy of the authority of the federal government on issues, and those who engage in civil disobedience as "mentally ill" in order to limit their God-given rights. Instead of citizens viewed as "anti-authoritarian" to government over-reach, the government could see citizens as "mentally ill" for opposing its authority. Many people have some type of medical condition considered a "mental illness"; but, those individuals are not impaired to the point of having their rights infringed.
And, any "mental health reform" that results in the violation of an individual's right to privacy surrounding medical treatment is totally egregious. The government has zero right to poke their nose in anyone's medical records to engage in limiting an individual's rights. It is an affront to medical privacy, the doctor-patient and nurse-patient relationship, and erosion to the trust required when seeking medical treatment. What individual would seek care and treatment for any mental health issue when government could use that information to limit their rights?
No one has disagreed with the point of keeping arms out of the hands of dangerous people. However, the government, under Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, engaged in an illegal gun purchasing operation known as "Fast and Furious" to arm dangerous people, which resulted in the death of multiple individuals to include a beauty queen from Mexico and a US Border Patrol agent and used by ATF to justify new gun control regulations against US citizens. "Fast and Furious" included an international element in relation to Benghazi and Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, no one has held Hussein Soetoro, Eric Holder, or any federal agent participating in those schemes accountable. The borders of the united States remain open allowing criminal cartels, such as MS-13, terrorists, and dangerous people, mingling with non-aggressive non-violent individuals, to enter, carrying Lord knows what as far as firearms are concerned, in numbers amounting to an invasion. Moreover, sanctuary cities offer "safe haven" to illegal alien invader criminals. How does the government propose to "keep arms away from dangerous people," speaking of criminals, when criminals don't follow laws and government itself engages in gun running criminality?
No one has addressed the massive bulk purchasing of ammunition by the government and arming federal workers with firearms who are not in positions where firearms are a necessity for the performance of their job. Yet, government seeks to infringe upon the right of the people, who are not part of the federal machine, to keep and bear arms. While government officials, such as congressional members, have armed security for protection, these officials work to limit the people's ability to protect themselves. If these officials are not comfortable relying upon law enforcement to protect them, these same officials should not expect the people to place confidence in law enforcement, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled "police have no constitutional duty to protect members of the public from harm." This should make everyone uncomfortable with the rise of "Black Lives Matter," Antifa, and other violent factions engaging in sedition and intending to harm those possessing a stance in opposition to those groups.
What about all the gun control laws previously passed in violation of the Second Amendment? None of these kept criminals from obtaining firearms for nefarious purposes. First, criminals don't obey the law; second, where there is a will, a criminal will find a way. Laws establishing murder as a crime has not stopped an evil individual from committing murder. Lastly, evil people will commit evil deeds using whatever they can as a weapon. It has not processed through the minds of many that no gun control legislation will keep an evil person from obtaining a firearm and committing evil deeds. Nor has anyone processed through some minds that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a deterrent to crime.
If President Trump and Vice President Pence are supportive of the Second Amendment, due process and against gun control, no one would have mentioned banning bump stocks, "assault weapons," which is a total misnomer, and infringing upon due process rights, restricting ownership of firearms based upon age and urging Congress to pass additional gun control legislation. This is a great example of politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouths: tell the media and Congress one thing, tell the representative of the grassroots organization concerning firearms something else. After eight years of Obama-ese, the citizens of this republic deserve some "straight shooting" (pun intended).
But, more than straight shooting, citizens deserve the government they created and established by the Constitution – limited with defined powers where the bulk of power rests with the States and the people. The infringement upon the rights of the people by government is reaching epic proportion – correction, it is at an epic proportion. Enough is enough. When government infringes upon the rights of the people, the people lose while government gains. And, government is an entity receiving its power and consent to govern from the people. Only people have rights, bestowed upon them by God; government has no rights. Any politician, like Hillary Clinton, suggesting government has "the right" to limit what God bestows deserves to be ripped from office and prevented from holding office in the future.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.