DC Larson's Ideas Afoot 

(Ordering info at bottom)

Ideas Afoot is my latest and sixth book. Its 86 pages are densely packed with intellectual fiber, lively wit, and declarative voice. In it, I champion traditional American Constitutional values like free speech, presumption of innocence, and national sovereignty. 

I also address larger topics of contemporary significance: Patriotism, ideological tolerance, news media fairness, 'whole cloth' life philosophy, philosophical evolution, illegal immigration, and cultural integrity. 

Ideas Afoot subjects include intellectual liberty; biblical and secular rights affirmations; the Southern Poverty Law Center's grifting; Hollywood bigotry; the failed 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign's contempt for the common man; Norman Lear's despoiling of comedy television; the Nazi-enabling past of George Soros; dirty trickster Roger Stone's elitism; and increasing agitations against our National Anthem and Confederate and American flags.  

Here's a brief author bio:

DC Larson gained practical political knowledge through decades of education and activism across the ideological spectrum. In 2015 and 2016, he advocated Donald Trump's historic campaign in several Iowa newspapers. But before that, in 2000, he helped found the Iowa Green Party and served in 2004 as Iowa coordinator for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader.  

Today a pro-Trump online activist, he is also a retro science fiction novelist, political and rock and roll blogger, and commentator whose freelance credits include Daily Caller, American Thinker, USA Today, Goldmine, No Depression, and others.

Ideas Afoot chapters:

1 - To think, to speak, to be

2 - Anger and principle coexistent

3 - The confidence man in the mailbox

4 -  Avuncular estimations

5 - The chauffeured agitator who spoiled American comedy  television

6 - Hillary's snoot society / Hollywood at powdery remove

7 - The sinister styles of news fakery

8 - The velveteen mountebank

9 - Never Forget this about George Soros

10 - Biology shall not be moved

11 - Aggressions confronted

Paperback, $10 check or money order

DC Larson

322 E. Louise St.

Waterloo, Iowa 50703

Kindle, $2.99

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07BT2H1L3/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1522457835&sr=1-1&keywords=ideas+afoot

Anti-Second Amendment voices misrepresent 1960s Civil Rights movement

"What they're doing is no different than what we did in the Civil Rights Movement. You know, the students who sat at the lunch counters...Their fight today is no different. It's just the modern day Civil Rights Movement that they're engaged in."
- Lucia McBath, interviewed during MSNBC's promotional coverage of the 3/24 March For Our Lives rally, in Washington, DC.

McBath's son Jordan was in 2012 killed by a Florida shooter. And for that, she certainly merits our sympathy. But that tragedy in no way elevates her above legitimate criticism for now speaking foolishly on a matter that could impact all Americans.

The 1960s Civil Rights Movement pressed for governmental recognition of rights guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution. The recent March For Our Lives was its opposite. Its central argument was that government deny a Constitutional right to citizens.

McBath was not alone in misrepresenting popular political phenomena. Georgia Congressman John Lewis, a hail-worthy veteran of the historic push for racial civil rights, reportedly joined in Atlanta's anti-Second Amendment march. 

That contemporary forces strive for undue respect by leeching off of the 1960s movement to which they have no true philosophical bond apparently does not concern Lewis. Conclude what you will, then, about his current-day moral credibility.

Whether one owns a firearm is irrelevant. Constitutional rights are our birthright property.They are not mere privileges to be granted or withdrawn as suits familial interests, status-obsessive lawmakers, or hand-springing juveniles in whose tender grasp a little knowledge is indeed a very dangerous thing.

Tolerance stumbles, but principles immovable

On March 22, Roseanne (and co-star John Goodman) appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel show to promote the return of their iconic series. And her words prompted me to think on two points.

Kimmel: "Roseanne Conner is a Trump supporter, on the show."

Roseanne: "Well, she did vote for the president."

K: "She voted for the president."

R: "Yup, she did."

K: "And that's part of the dynamic with you and your family, on that show."

R: "And in real life. It's like everybody's family is pissed off at each other, for one thing or the other."

K: "Is your family mad at you?"

R: "Well, you know, we had some pro-Hillarys, and some pro-Trumps. And there was a lot of fightin'."

Discord owing to politics just cropped up in my own family. I'm ashamed to admit I lifted the shovel as energetically as anyone.

I usually delete social media political posts with which I disagree. But a family member's recent reposting of a specific, never proved smear of one politician provoked me to insist they either provide substantiating evidence (of which I knew there to be none), or retract the allegation.

And therein, I was wrong. While demanding evidence is legitimate, calling for the stifling of even scurrilous speech is not. At least, not by me. As I wasn't the party traduced, I was without standing.

Doing so runs clangingly counter to the free speech sympathy I elsewhere advocate. I failed my own general instinct. 

Besides, by being thrown without factual basis, social media smears discredit themselves and are unworthy of serious consideration. Harsh but merited will be conclusions about the posters' credibility.  

In my latest book, I had written extensively on the presumption of innocence. In affirming its historic imprint, I quoted the Old Testament, Magna Carta, US Constitution's Fourth Amendment, and the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I also had addressed the subjects of Fake News, political dirty trickery, and social media dissemination of slurs. So, when I happened upon the post to which I reacted wrongly, lessons of which I'd just written were fresh in my spirit.

That explains, but it does not excuse. I hope to learn from my heat-of-the-moment tumble from principle.

Kimmel: "You were a very liberal, socially liberal person, in general."

Roseanne: "I'm still the same. You all moved! You all went so far fuckin' out, you lost everybody!"

As I've held fast to longtime ideas and values, I've seen the major parties resituate themselves. For example: Democrats once supported unhindered expression. Liberals took up arms in defense of unorthodox voices, defending them, on principle, against governmental and corporate suppression. 

Conservatives were most frequently seen as favoring censorship, a not entirely unwarranted conclusion.

The Democrats-boosting ACLU, of which I was once a member, traditionally supported free speech. But no more. Following the 2017 Charlottsville, Virginia "Unite The Right" rally, the organization unashamedly announced it would no longer defend First Amendment rights for citizens who'd availed themselves of Second Amendment ones.

That same year, the Washington Area Metro Transit Authority refused to post ads for author Milo Yiannoupolos' Dangerous. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio was not troubled by this governmental stifling of an ideological adversary. He tweeted: "I don't believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases."

Never mind that that's pretty much the ACLU's defining philosophical essence. Or, at least, used to be.

Today's Democrat Party is typically in lockstep with anti-free speech terrorists of the Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Resistance order. Speakers are shouted down, or their expression denied entirely. Event sites are attacked by masked rioters, who destroy property and set blazes. Audiences are threatened and assaulted. Controversial radio, television, and online broadcasts are petitioned against, their advertisers pressured. Not that opposing voices be heard, which would be a legitimate ambition, but only that disobliging ones be stifled.

Consider, also, the on-campus enthusiasm for railroading those accused, official disregard for established evidentiary standards, and denying defendants effective voice in proceedings whose outcomes may impact not only their academic welfare, but also post-educational professional fortunes.

Liberals who traditionally evoked Daniel Webster, Clarence Darrow (the "Attorney for the Damned"), and the Scottsboro Boys in pressing for the rights of the accused kneeling in abject submission before the formidable state now remain tellingly silent in the face of contemporary injustices.

Democrats formerly championed the fine idea of the common man selecting civil government through the electoral process. But no more, as liberal local officials obstruct federal authority, prominent figures urge the destruction of the electoral college, and street hordes mindlessly chant "Not my president." 

And, in times previous, Democrats railed against unelected corporations exercising control over citizens' Constitutional liberties. This season, though, private mega-companies like Citibank, Walmart, Kroger (Fred Meyer), MetLife, Dick's, L.L. Bean,  Hertz, and Delta announced policies in calculated contravention of citizens' Second Amendment rights. And no protestation has issued from the left.

Nor has the Democrat Party uttered violation of privacy complaints about Big Tech behemoths like Google, Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook harvesting and marketing users' information, or censoring political speech. 

The late columnist, author, and and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff enjoyed general recognition as an authority on citizens' Constitutional rights, especially regarding speech and judicial issues. 

I recall that in one of his later columns, Hentoff noted that he would be more inclined to support a Republican presidential candidate than a Democratic one. The former party, he argued, would be institutionally inclined to protect the Constitutional rights and liberties he'd spent a lifetime championing. 

Democrats were increasingly radical and likely to shred America's most vital document, Hentoff warned, at once strangling citizens' freedoms and guarantees of justice.

And here we are, living in the terrible reality he predicted. 

So, Roseanne spoke for many of us: "I'm still the same. You all moved!" 

This is an excerpt from my forthcoming Ideas Afoot (Bromley Street Press)

One

To think, to speak, to be

Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the right of every Man, as far as by iy, he does not hurt or controul the right of Another. And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it needs to know.
- Benjamin Franklin / New-England Courant "Silence Dogood No. 8" July 9, 1792

Intolerance is abloom. Its breast heaves with smug delusion of moral superiority.

It prizes feelings over facts. For that reason, it is nonintellectual.

Traditionally, the understanding among inquisitive thinkers who sought discussion of existential matters was that one could transcend immediate circumstance. Obviously, none could offer first-hand insights into experiences they had not lived. But it was agreed that by incorporating diverse testimonies into their general world knowledge, they were better able to reason and speak universally. 

But in the hearts of intolerance shield bearers, none but members of Community X can speak about Community X. 

Not long ago, many held fast to the noble ideal enunciated by Voltaire biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But those today jutting jaws under the intolerance banner have no such respect for opinion diversity. 

It is possible to completely support others' rights without sharing their every philosophy or agreeing with each decision they make. But to many today, embracing others' beliefs is a necessary component of  supporting their rights. That is an illogical 
formulation, but it is the one rallied 'round by vociferous hectors. 

Intolerance despises philosophical difference. It lashes out with claw and fang at the least hint of variance.

The wretch fancies itself sophisticated. But rational observers recognize crush-throat bigotry when it blusters around the corner.

Reflect on the bilious notion that it is acceptable to verbally bully and smear those expressing contrary opinions. (Doubtless, such actions are perpetrated as much to gild the culprit in the gazes of fellow Political Correctness bladesmen as anything else.)

Some who falsely hurl epithets surely do wrong with the dirty hope of stifling conversations. No one wants to be identified as a bigot. And some innocent persons, fearing negative social branding, retreat into silence rather than contest ideas. 

Totalitarians love quiescence. It makes domination easier.

A person once challenged my defending white supremacists' free speech rights, noting that I also criticize NFL players' National Anthem kneeling. The revolting implication was that I somehow sympathized with the content of supremacist speech.

Rather than marshal exonerative evidence, I'll simply borrow a line from Christopher Hitchens: "That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Persons who would seriously examine bigotry and expunge it from our shared American culture must acknowledge that some differences of opinion are legitimate. No one owns the issues involved, nor is it reasonable to denounce as haters all who see matters differently.  

Support for the liberty of a speaker does not equate to endorsement of thoughts they might voice.

The difference between one's own time and that of one's employer is also important, here. Street demonstrators, pamphleteers, and online agitators are at liberty to spend personal time in pursuits of their choosing and to utter views, whether fine or foul.

But during an on-the-clock event, professional athletes are bound by employers' standards. And this hardly applies exclusively to football players. An office supply store clerk, for example, cannot reasonably claim First Amendment protection for spontaneous cash register-situation renderings of entire Gilbert and Sullivan operas.

Horn-blaring attempts to disrupt public events, and college student petitionary efforts to pressure universities into withdrawing speaking invitations, fall into the fascistic category. So do the endeavors of pressure groups who deluge broadcasters and advertisers with demands, not that additional perspectives be featured, but that disobliging voices be stifled. 

The wonderful First Amendment, though, is not conducive to their repression impulse. It does not protect only speech pleasant to our hearing. And no right to not be offended by others' opinions exists. 

Historically, the Constitution's protection of speech proved of incalculable benefit to persons challenging injustices.

There is no need to unfurl a list of once-unpopular ideas that eventually bettered America. Nor must a thought offer that potential to merit legal safeguarding. 

Great minds have long deliberated over the rights of the individual in society. American judicial and legislative efforts have proceeded from the foundation of the Constitution, a remarkable document that altered the course of history.

The freedoms to consider what seems most likely and that best reflects one's values, and to give public utterance to those perceptions, are treasures no good man would seek to deny his fellows.

Still, the shadow of a scimitar wielded by waspish doctrinaires has today fallen across liberty's throat. 

So enthralled are some by imaginings of an enforced utopia that they overlook the obvious: Might does not make right. And there can always be a bigger group in the offing. 


*****

Advancement a many-splendored thing, Iowa faith liberty denied

I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural history, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry, and Porcelaine. 
- John Adams, in a letter to Abigail Adams, per the Yale Book of Quotations.

Accounts attribute articulations of that sentiment to others, including George Washington. During his presidential candidacies of the last decade, Ralph Nader sometimes cited it. 

It's a warm notion, but also unrealistic.

National defense and serious intellectual disciplines are wrongly asserted as of lower quality, merely stepping stones on an upward climb ending in soft artfulness. It promotes a desired world of the imagination, rather than the real one in which we live. And it naively assumes other countries will follow suit.

Military defense, hard sciences, and creative pursuits are each
worthwhile,in peculiar ways. All have legitimate functions, are of enduring usefulness, and can and should coexist. 

An invading army can not be repelled by chiaroscuro any more than than the human spirit inspired by a procedural manual. 



*****


According to Des Moines Register reporter William Petroski, Iowa "Senate File 2338, which was described by supporters as Iowa's 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act,'  was referred Thursday from the senate debate calendar back to a senate committee...The move effectively kills the bill for the 2018 session..."

("Religious liberties bill likely dead in legislature" 
https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/15/religious-liberties-bill-likely-dead-iowa-legislature/428071002/ Petroski / Press-Citizen 3/15/2018 Petroski / Press-Citizen 3/15/2018))

The bill would have allowed private business owners to conduct transactions according to their religious beliefs, rather than ignoring them in favor of a state-mandated value system with which they did not agree. To run their businesses as they see fit, not as deemed proper by finger-in-the-wind governmental bureaucrats.

Opponents of owners so exercising religious liberty argue that businesses must observe state commerce dictates, as they enjoy practical profit through police and fire department attentions, as well as other municipal services.

No salesman is an island, they might say.

The obvious and superior counter is that by paying taxes, businesses already contribute their fair share to supporting those interests. They are being required to pay in an additional manner not pressed on others, by chucking personal faith into the back seat in order to participate in the marketplace.

One opponent of the religious freedom legislation, State Sen. Robert Hogg (D-Cedar Rapids), was quoted by Petroski as enthusing that the defeat of practiced faith would realize economic benefit. 

Another, Des Moines Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy, also applauded the quashing of business owners' religious liberty. Like Hogg, McCoy cited economic concerns, as well as a supposed 'inclusiveness' that explicitly excludes religious conscience.

Lusting after manna, promoting counterfeit inclusiveness, and taking claws to individual religious freedom is, presently, all the rage in Iowa's law-making body. That hardly recommends the state.

Abortionists must acknowledge full eugenics meaning of their repugnant desire 

There are times when an issue is made most clear by dispensing with theories and illustrating how real people would be impacted, no matter the ugliness of that truth.

Here we are. 

Columnist Ruth Marcos, of the Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post, recently boasted of her enthusiasm for exterminating babies with Down Syndrome.

("I would've aborted a fetus with Down Syndrome. Women need that right" Marcus / Washington Post 3/9/2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-fetus-with-down-syndrome-women-need-that-right/2018/03/09/3aaac364-23d6-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.1087312a116a)

Her announcement put the reality of their dirty business up into pro-abortionists' faces. No longer can they credibly claim distance from the eugenics philosophy, assuming they ever could. 

NBC's Ken Dilanian hurried onto Twitter to congratulate Marcus on a "Courageous column." 

Judging by family photos Dilanian features on his Facebook page, he is in an interracial marriage that has produced children. (I am also in an interracial marriage, now in its 20th year.) 

Perhaps Dilanian believes he and his family exist on some moneyed, elitist plateau, distant from the practical consequences of the genocide Marcus advocated and that he lustily cheered.

If so, he's wrong. Read on.

I studied US and foreign hate groups in the 1980s and 1990s. And I once read of an ex-nazi skinhead whose very young son was chronically disabled. The former bullyboy recalled that, for him, the neo-nazi philosophy went from theoretical to real-world and personal when a movement associate remarked that 'once our victory is a reality, the imperfect, including your son, will be exterminated.'

The logical extension of the Ruth Marcus eugenics dream, already terrible enough, would be the aborting of not only disabled babies (like arthrogrypotic reporter Serge Kovaleski), but also interracial ones, like those of Ken Dilanian and his wife.

That's the ugly truth. 


Addendum: On her Twitter page, Marcus identifies herself, in part, as a "Mother of two high-quality children..." In her mind, not all humanity is equal, but can be measured for "quality."

Ruth Marcus, She-Wolf of the SS
Washington Post columnist goes full, ugly eugenics against disabled

To whatever extent she worships, Ruth Marcus seems to do so exclusively at the pagan feminist shrine of eugenic selfishness. Her recent, cheery endorsement of aborting Down Syndrome babies reeked of reptilian ghastliness, and revealed her apparent distaste for disabled people as a group. 

("I would have aborted a fetus with Down Syndrome. Women need that right." 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-fetus-with-down-syndrome-women-need-that-right/2018/03/09/3aaac364-23d6-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html?utm_term=.f42ad9690267)

The broad brush horribleness advocated by Marcus was hailed by NBC reporter Ken Dilanian. "Courageous column," he tweeted, presumably not bothered that the larger world would know of his sympathy with icy vileness.

During the last presidential campaign, numerous anti-Trump commentators propagated the lie that the candidate had 'mocked a disabled reporter.'  (He had effected the same 'flustered' imitation prior to the moment concerning arthrogrypotic reporter Serge Kovaleski: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4. But never mind facts. Wikipedia, recently announced as Youtube's 'conspiracy checker,' still offers the untrue version.)

Shrill vixen Marcus was among those partisans attacking the candidate's imaginary mocking, including in "Donald Trump has crossed an uncrossable line of bigotry," her December 8, 2015 Washington Post column. 

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-has-crossed-an-uncrossable-line-of-bigotry/2015/12/08/87485412-9dd1-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html?utm_term=.026e8329bee0)

That moment has passed, of course. And Marcus has no further use for pretended outrage over a contrived narrative, or for Kovaleski, personally. Considering her 'abort Down Syndrome babies' screed, Marcus may well believe Kovaleski, too, was 'imperfect' and warranted pre-cradle murder.

Underneath this particular episode is a fundamental, philosophical conflict between the abortion-rights eugenics impulse and the correct disability rights argument that physical impairments do not diminish human worth, and that people within that category deserve equal respect and dignity.

Not extermination.

Wisdom needed in gun debate

Immature students advocating gun confiscation brought to mind this wisdom from Andy Griffith, as Sheriff Andy Taylor:

You can't let a young 'un decide for himself. He'll grab at the first flashy thing with shiny ribbons on it. Then, when he finds out there's a hook in it, it's too late. The wrong ideas come packaged with so much glitter, it's hard to convince him that other things might be better in the long run.

Naive students swinging placards at the devious behest of dyspeptic agitators long in the tooth should do less chanting and more reasoning. If constraining citizens' access to guns sounds sensible, imagine government limiting the type of church a citizen can attend, location to which they can travel, or how many books they can buy -- and what subjects authors can address.

The wise should not suffer because some students are ignorant of liberty's merit.

Being a friend to oneself by unfriending others


Elitist disdain for the common man, in 2016 evidenced by Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" slur, has become ubiquitous in the rhetoric of power-grasping Democrat Party leaders and their fake media and annoying activist cohorts. 

At the recent India Today Conclave, Clinton once again refused responsibility for her ignominious electoral toppling. She claimed candidate Trump had effectively told voters "you didn't like black people getting rights, you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you don't want it, you know, seeing that Indian-American succeeding more than you are."

Some of us recognize that bigotry is a serious matter, one that requires honest and substantive address. Others throw about related terminology and accusations as mere stunt gadgets to be leveraged for transient political advantage. 

As a general proposition, shutting down social or professional associations for reasons of political opinion is wrong. It can bespeak intolerance, as well as ignore that people who share non-political interests can maintain relations on those levels, political differences being irrelevant.

Too, everyone has a right to an opinion. No one should suffer ostracization for ideological reasons. Someone's holding a view contrary to one's own is part of life. If you find their words disobliging, simply turn the page. That's what adults do.

I write in several areas. Rock and roll criticism is one of them. Many of the musicians to whose work I pay attention are not Trump backers, judging by their social media posts.

That's their business. I value their musical ideas, not their political ones.

But the principle of self respect is equally valid. And it, too, has legitimate standing. 

Recently, I unfriended a Facebook writing colleague. Her prejudice against Trump supporters led her to post a particularly 
despicable, deceitful reference that essentially equated us all with the loathsome KKK. And, in subsequent online conversation, she was unapologetic, even defiantly reasserting her foul imprecation.

A tolerant nature need not indulge ignorance. Or extremism. Or viciousness. By unfriending the offender in question, I stood tall not only for myself, but for the truth that Americans who support President Trump and the fine America First cause cannot reasonably be dismissed as bigots. 

I addressed the larger topic in my 2017 book: That a Man Can Again Stand Up (Bromley Press).

My support of the Donald Trump candidacy, as well as his wise selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to join him as vice-presidential running mate, put me in an interesting position. I am in an interracial marriage, one that has happily endured for some twenty years. And my youngest brother is a gay academic.

From that peculiar perspective, I saw Trump routinely (and falsely) slurred as representative of hates I had spent decades monitoring. I well understood bigotry's potential for real harm. The terrible historical evidence was undeniable, of course, and contemporary experiences and sensible concerns I shared with loved ones underscored enduring gravity.

So I was disgusted to hear commentators, political figures, and activists throwing baseless smears at Trump-Pence -- and, implicitly, at supporters like myself. By their opportunism, they were cheapening serious phenomena about which every citizen needs to stand attentive.

Tens of millions of good Americans across the country had rallied to Trump's side. Opponents who deceitfully alleged him to be bigoted likely persuaded observers who might otherwise be sympathetic to discount them as credible advocates. As a result, future cases of true bigotry might not receive appropriate public regard...

Real bigotry must at every opportunity be spotlighted and ground into dust. But when Hillary Clinton and her allies flung stomach-turning accusations and epithets, without evidential foundation and merely for partisan point-scoring, they distracted well-intentioned citizens and muddied crucial conversation.

"Republicans are the party of Abraham Lincoln," candidate Trump had told an 8/26/2016 audience here in Iowa, at our Sen. Joanie Ernst's Ride and Roast event. "Nothing means more to me than working to make our party the home of the African-American vote, once again."

Sadly, unprincipled Trump opponents still cling to the false and divisive line that Americans chose a bigoted presidential candidate. And that our selection reveals we either share in that alleged wrong, or, at least, do not find it so repellent as to impact ballot-casting.  

The free exchange of perspectives is to be championed. In that way, citizens can find valuable truths perhaps not otherwise discoverable, appreciate others' ideas, and arrive at solutions to problems confronting us all. 

But not every voice is legitimate. Not all contribute meaningfully. And sometimes, enough is simply enough.

'Unalienable' right ever of solid standing

President Trump's remarks should not always be taken literally, or as sound indicators of his intentions. He's written of the tactical usefulness of rhetorical exaggeration in stirring debate and impacting deal-making. And he certainly demonstrated that during the campaign months.
Better to watch his actions and evaluate the ultimate product.
Still, the president's recent, seeming disregard for citizens' rights to gun ownership and due process bear remark, if only that enduring popular regard for those be established.
"Take the guns, first," the president suggested in a recent White House Safe Schools event with lawmakers. "Go through due process, second."
Daily Caller's Anders Hagstrom reported Trump's words followed Vice President Mike Pence's admonition to "Allow due process, so no one's rights are trampled." Pence stressed obtaining the proper court order prior to gun confiscation.
But, according to Trump, authorities should instead "Take the firearms first, and then go to court...A lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns, early."
Not long ago, the president expressed approval of a like proposal made by Florida Governor Rick Scott. Scott advocated the establishment of a Violent Threat Restraining Order.

Scott explained to reporters: "This would allow a court to prevent a violent or mentally ill person from purchasing a firearm or any other weapon when either a family member, community welfare expert, or law enforcement officer files a sworn request, and presents evidence to the court of a threat of violence involving firearms or other weapons. There would be speedy due process for the accused and any fraudulent or false statements would face criminal penalties."("Rick Scott proposes $550 million school safety program, no ban on specific weapons, no armed teachers" (http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/23/rick-scott-proposes-450-million-school-safety-program/ Tampa Bay Times 2/23/2018)
Like Scott's plan, President Trump's 'take first, bother with due process, later' idea would turn bottom-over-top the traditionally accepted order whereby punishment is on;y meted out following a finding of guilt.

No charges or convictions would be required for the desired governmental infringement on Americans' gun ownership rights, merely unsubstantiated 'complaints' -- ones that may or may not be valid, and could easily be lodged for illegitimate purposes.

The president is in an unenviable position. A terrible, mass shooting was perpetrated in Florida. Citizens are legitimately scared and deserving of official attention. But, by even suggesting this overreach, he has put into jeopardy the public whose interests he would safeguard.
Whether one owns a firearm is irrelevant. Constitutional rights are our birthright property, not merely privileges to be granted or withdrawn as suit lawmakers.
Imagine government mandating waiting periods for book purchases, church attendance, or petitioning officials for redress of grievances.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that men are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights..."
Those precious rights are not the government's to deny us.
Again, the president may simply have gone to an extreme for tactical effect. So, vigilance is advised.