I searched this thread for the word "dangerous," but it wasn't mentioned, even though that word, along with a couple of other words, are absolutely pivotal to the nature, meaning, and extent of President Trump's statement. By avoiding those words you are taking his statement out of context, inaccurately altering its meaning.
Let's try that again, with those critical words highlighted in red:
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.
Was he talking about everyone? NO.
Was he talking about only gun owners? NO.
Was he talking about persons who are a danger to themselves and others because of mental instability or imminent criminal intent? YES.
Many states already have such laws on the books. If I come across a private citizen who is waiving around a firearm in public, regardless of whether they're mentally incompetent or criminally menacing others, one way or the other, they're going down, and my state laws back me up.
Some of you wrongly jumped to the conclusion that I would shoot them, just as some of you wrongly jumped to the conclusion that President Trump wants to take your guns away. That's not what he said. Always consider the context.
sorry, since9,
whom ascertains someone is dangerous?
whom determines they are a danger to themselves?
whom determines mental instability?
whom determines criminal intent?
let's see moms against everything believe gun owners are dangerous and do not facilitate gun owners at their meetings and rumors abound where they have told their followers to call 911 and exaggerate the seriousness of the sight of a gun owner carrying their firearm and law enforcement reacts accordingly.
so law enforcement are appropriately trained to determine mental instability and if someone is a danger to themselves? for example, some gun owner says i'm so frustrated over xyz i'm could/going to kill myself...someone overhears and reports it to 911, off goes the law enforcement to take the gun owner and restrain and arrange transportation to the hospital possibly stopping to confiscating their firearms?
both scenarios mentioned above could be done against the gun owner, er this country's citizens, then permission is sought to validate the law enforcement's actions.