Clinton and her corrupt syndicate must not be allowed to win... 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter elk_n_esox
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure Clinton has 10 more women ready to accuse Trump of sexual abuse or another tape or something. It's important to VOTE. Make sure you cast your ballot. No matter what it's going to be close. The programmed dembots think the whole thing is a conspiracy against the Clinton's and she's a saint (I just threw up in my mouth typing that). They will always cast their vote (maybe three or four?). I think michigan will end up for Trump.. signs everywhere. VOTE!
hoshour
Veteran member
I don't normally watch Hannity, though I do watch Fox News, but on his show, Rudy Guiliani, former prosecutor and mayor of New York City listed 18 different offenses that it appears Hillary has broken, some of them completely obvious, such as destruction of evidence (emails and her hard drive), contempt, and obstruction of justice by her continuing lies and lack of cooperation and the destruction of so many emails. Add Bill on that one, since he apparently threatened Loretta Lynch and someone got to FBI Director Comey.
This is like the Mafia - constant corruption and breaking laws for years but without the prosecution that would be brought against anyone else. How they do that, I don't know, but it's pretty scary. And then there's the ongoing FBI investigation into the pay for play on the Clinton Foundation as it accepted large donations from heads of state and powerful people Sec. of State Clinton visited.
This is like the Mafia - constant corruption and breaking laws for years but without the prosecution that would be brought against anyone else. How they do that, I don't know, but it's pretty scary. And then there's the ongoing FBI investigation into the pay for play on the Clinton Foundation as it accepted large donations from heads of state and powerful people Sec. of State Clinton visited.
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
Not weighing in on who you are voting for, I understand vehement opposition to Clinton. But the 2nd amdt is a total red herring for this election, and all elections. Vote on the real issues that matter to you that can actually be affected - immigration, a welfare state, the direction of the economy. That is what should be important. No one is going to take your guns. Vote for Trump because you like the direction he will take this country, if you think that is what is best for us. Don't vote for someone based on some red herring argument that has been tossed around for decades but has never come to fruition.
They said Obama would take our guns. Last I checked I have only added guns to my collection since 2008. What, exactly, is Hillary going to do to re-write a constitutional amendment and deprive you of your right to own firearms? People fear the drawing of a line, like an assault weapons ban. There already is a line drawn, though - you can't own a rocket launcher. And that is probably for the best right there. So there is some discretion and interpretation involved in the evaluation of an amendment to the constitution. Same with free speech - some speech is restricted, and rightfully so. It does not mean that free speech is under siege.
The second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and I will always support that. But I am not going to sit here and tell you that the second amendment means you can have whatever kind of gun you want - an RPG, a tank, a Browning fully automatic .50 cal machine gun. That is not really good for anyone, except our armed forces.
And as a last point, to be entirely cynical - politics is about money (thank you Citizens United). The gun lobby has endless resources, so if push really comes to shove (which it wont) money wins every time.
Vote for whomever you want, that I will never argue with. That is your prerogative and our ability to freely discuss this and vote is what makes America great. But focus on what matters. Your guns will still be here in four or eight years, no matter who wins.
They said Obama would take our guns. Last I checked I have only added guns to my collection since 2008. What, exactly, is Hillary going to do to re-write a constitutional amendment and deprive you of your right to own firearms? People fear the drawing of a line, like an assault weapons ban. There already is a line drawn, though - you can't own a rocket launcher. And that is probably for the best right there. So there is some discretion and interpretation involved in the evaluation of an amendment to the constitution. Same with free speech - some speech is restricted, and rightfully so. It does not mean that free speech is under siege.
The second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, and I will always support that. But I am not going to sit here and tell you that the second amendment means you can have whatever kind of gun you want - an RPG, a tank, a Browning fully automatic .50 cal machine gun. That is not really good for anyone, except our armed forces.
And as a last point, to be entirely cynical - politics is about money (thank you Citizens United). The gun lobby has endless resources, so if push really comes to shove (which it wont) money wins every time.
Vote for whomever you want, that I will never argue with. That is your prerogative and our ability to freely discuss this and vote is what makes America great. But focus on what matters. Your guns will still be here in four or eight years, no matter who wins.
mnhoundman
Veteran member
Extractor
Active Member
dustin ray
Veteran member
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
Ah yes, the all-time favorite Hitler parallel, good one! Way to counter a logical argument that is actually open for discussion with something that is entirely off-base, unrealistic, and utterly stupid.
To your point, America (and you) said the same thing about Obama eight years ago, and every day since. How did that work out?
Focus on what matters, not parallels to Hitler. You want to vote Trump, awesome go for it. But do it for an educated reason, not some false Hitler equivalency.
dustin ray
Veteran member
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
Trolling by bringing reasonable points up for discussion? I'd argue the troll is you, my friend, throwing out asinine comments that have no basis in reality. I am not telling anyone who to vote for, just trying to encourage people to vote on what matters. If you think Trump is the best man for the job, then by all means, vote for him and I will support your right to vote. But throwing out Hitler is sort of missing the point.
Last edited:
brianboh
Active Member
mnhoundman
Veteran member
Ok Ok I'll say it, it's not just the second amendment it's jobs taxes on small business, running them right into the ground every day. Oh yeah the affordable Care act! If you don't think we need different health care policy than I don't know what to say! How can families afford $2,400 a month, yeah really dam ridiculous, just a few things that need changing, pretty sure Clinton wouldn't do a dam thing about that!
Oh yeah I'm voting Trump!
Oh yeah I'm voting Trump!
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
I cant say that I disagree with you there, and the issues you raise are very important. It is good to focus on this, what actually matters, and not red herrings. I am glad you voted, regardless of who you are voting for, it is the greatest right we have in this democracy. If we don't vote then we do truly lose our voice.
mnhoundman
Veteran member
I can't believe what has happened to health care premiums, they have doubled here. That is unacceptable people can not afford that, something has to change either way.
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
Totally agree, the ACA is an absolute disaster. Issues like this should drive the election, not gun rights. Our guns rights are not going anywhere but our money and healthcare are. Focus on what matters is all I am saying here, and the points you bring up do matter.
Alabama
Veteran member
Hey COgunmoney, you realize that Justice Scalia is dead right? You realize the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right by individuals and not just for armed militias (aka state guards and national guard troops in individual states) was won by a 5-4 margin. Scalia was one of the 5 winning votes. We had 4 conservative, 1 moderate and 4 liberal judges. Hillary said she supports the 2nd amendment: is that the 2nd amendment that says only organized militias can own firearms? She loves the Australian model of gun control, she has said so many times.
This election is about a ton of issues; on that we fully agree, but the appointing of at least one justice to the supreme court is high among them. That court can and will set the tone of the country with their so called "interpretation" of the constitution.
This election is about a ton of issues; on that we fully agree, but the appointing of at least one justice to the supreme court is high among them. That court can and will set the tone of the country with their so called "interpretation" of the constitution.
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
I do realize he is dead, and I do understand how the Supreme Court works. I attended law school at The University of Colorado and practiced law for three years in oil and gas before going into the business side of energy. So I am decently well versed in constitutional law, amendments, the role of the justices, etc.
Let's say Hillary appoints a judge, and Hillary does in fact like the Australian model. I have also heard that Obama likes the Australian model, and yet here we are, eight years later, and my gun rights are still intact. But let's take on your issue...
To have a case before the Supreme Court, we would first have to have a challenge to an existing law. No existing law is going to be challenged on guns because those have already been litigated. So there would need to be a new law enacted. To have a new law enacted, first we go through the House, then we go through the Senate then the president signs that into law.
The only thing congress can agree on lately is that they all deserve lifetime pensions no matter what, and that they get a raise every year. Outside of that, they don't agree on anything. So even if Hillary were to push, lets say a total ban (she wont, political suicide and the money in the gun lobby is insane) you are going to assume that passes the house and senate, before any Supreme Court justice gets a crack at the analysis. All GOP'ers would likely vote no on the bill, so it would rest on the democrats to pass it. With both houses currently under GOP control, that would be tough. Add on to that states like Colorado, that lean blue with their electorate, but that no representative from here would ever vote for a ban. Coloradoans (me included) love their guns. It is a political non-starter here.
For one, I do not see Hillary pursuing a ban as likely. She has never advocated for a total ban. Both her and Obama have said the like the Australian model (I'll take your word for it) but nothing has changed here in the last eight years. Expressing admiration for something that works abroad does not necessarily mean they can pass it here. And personally, I think she knows that. She might WANT a total ban (I do not think that is the case, but lets say it is), but she is no idiot (you can disagree with her ideas and methods, and you can say she does dumb things, but she is not actually dumb) and she is a career politician, this would be a losing battle to pick. So I think it would be highly unlikely for her to pursue a total ban, or the Australian model. Add on to that the fact that our country has far bigger issues than guns, and I do not see that issue getting a lot of traction.
What I DO hear Hillary talking about is background checks and maybe a ban on assault weapons - these seem to be her main gun platform issues. I am ok with background checks, and while assault weapons are a blast, I am not going to sit here and tell you it is my constitutional right to own one.
I would not support the Australian model, or an interpretation where only the army and national guard are allowed to posses guns. But I do not see that happening here. Americans like their guns too much, and I do not think the support nationwide is there for a total ban - it would never make it through congress, even if it ends up being controlled by the democrats at some point in the future. There are enough gun loving democrats out there to keep things in check. It would be total political suicide and a complete non-starter.
So long story short - political suicide, no nationwide support, guns are in our fabric and they are not going anywhere.
Let's say Hillary appoints a judge, and Hillary does in fact like the Australian model. I have also heard that Obama likes the Australian model, and yet here we are, eight years later, and my gun rights are still intact. But let's take on your issue...
To have a case before the Supreme Court, we would first have to have a challenge to an existing law. No existing law is going to be challenged on guns because those have already been litigated. So there would need to be a new law enacted. To have a new law enacted, first we go through the House, then we go through the Senate then the president signs that into law.
The only thing congress can agree on lately is that they all deserve lifetime pensions no matter what, and that they get a raise every year. Outside of that, they don't agree on anything. So even if Hillary were to push, lets say a total ban (she wont, political suicide and the money in the gun lobby is insane) you are going to assume that passes the house and senate, before any Supreme Court justice gets a crack at the analysis. All GOP'ers would likely vote no on the bill, so it would rest on the democrats to pass it. With both houses currently under GOP control, that would be tough. Add on to that states like Colorado, that lean blue with their electorate, but that no representative from here would ever vote for a ban. Coloradoans (me included) love their guns. It is a political non-starter here.
For one, I do not see Hillary pursuing a ban as likely. She has never advocated for a total ban. Both her and Obama have said the like the Australian model (I'll take your word for it) but nothing has changed here in the last eight years. Expressing admiration for something that works abroad does not necessarily mean they can pass it here. And personally, I think she knows that. She might WANT a total ban (I do not think that is the case, but lets say it is), but she is no idiot (you can disagree with her ideas and methods, and you can say she does dumb things, but she is not actually dumb) and she is a career politician, this would be a losing battle to pick. So I think it would be highly unlikely for her to pursue a total ban, or the Australian model. Add on to that the fact that our country has far bigger issues than guns, and I do not see that issue getting a lot of traction.
What I DO hear Hillary talking about is background checks and maybe a ban on assault weapons - these seem to be her main gun platform issues. I am ok with background checks, and while assault weapons are a blast, I am not going to sit here and tell you it is my constitutional right to own one.
I would not support the Australian model, or an interpretation where only the army and national guard are allowed to posses guns. But I do not see that happening here. Americans like their guns too much, and I do not think the support nationwide is there for a total ban - it would never make it through congress, even if it ends up being controlled by the democrats at some point in the future. There are enough gun loving democrats out there to keep things in check. It would be total political suicide and a complete non-starter.
So long story short - political suicide, no nationwide support, guns are in our fabric and they are not going anywhere.
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
One more thing, I misspoke on future challenges to the 2nd. There are current cases that could make their way to the Supreme Court. What I was getting at here, though, is the fact that even if Heller is overturned, there would need to be a subsequent law that would then ban ownership of guns by private citizens. Then you would go through the circus of congress.
And one last note - there is no "so called interpretation" of the constitution. Every law is interpreted. Something being interpreted does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing. The first amendment is interpreted, and has been many times.
Then one last final last note - in another few years you are going to be able to 3d print whatever you want. So there is always that.
And one last note - there is no "so called interpretation" of the constitution. Every law is interpreted. Something being interpreted does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing. The first amendment is interpreted, and has been many times.
Then one last final last note - in another few years you are going to be able to 3d print whatever you want. So there is always that.
- Status