• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment | The Hill

Holy crap on a cracker... Please, PLEASE, click the link above and watch the video as well as read the article. The real scary part to me is not that she dodged the question, but that when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..."

WTF did she just say???

My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED?

Has she lost her mind? Or has some yet unrevealed propensity of hers toward actually being a dictator finally come out?

There's more, like that the Second Amendment was nuanced before what she calls, "Scalia's ruling."

Just watch the video. Why the hell didn't the George Stephanopoulos ask a follow-up question about the press' 1st Amendment Rights being regulated according to her? Is he so far down the rabbit hole with the Clintons that he just ignored that obvious attack on our rights?

EDIT: Got the video off of YouTube, but please, still go and read the article in the link above.


I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment | The Hill

Holy crap on a cracker... Please, PLEASE, click the link above and watch the video as well as read the article. The real scary part to me is not that she dodged the question, but that when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..."

WTF did she just say???

My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED?

Has she lost her mind? Or has some yet unrevealed propensity of hers toward actually being a dictator finally come out?

There's more, like that the Second Amendment was nuanced before what she calls, "Scalia's ruling."

Just watch the video. Why the hell didn't the George Stephanopoulos ask a follow-up question about the press' 1st Amendment Rights being regulated according to her? Is he so far down the rabbit hole with the Clintons that he just ignored that obvious attack on our rights?

EDIT: Got the video off of YouTube, but please, still go and read the article in the link above.


I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.

Just So Ya Know: Trumps also believes the same thing, history does not lie, people do.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,154
Reaction score
21,255
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yep. I've pointed this out all along.

This woman would appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would either overrule McDonald, or gut it by interpreting it so as to allow so much government restriction we'll be lucky to own a single shot .22 cal rifle or a single shot .22 cal pistol.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,860
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just So Ya Know: Trumps also believes the same thing, history does not lie, people do.

I have no idea what I'm going to do in November. I was leaning toward Hillary until all the lies and illegal activity was uncovered. I can't stomach the thought of voting for Trump. Voting for anyone other than those two is a waste of my vote, IMHO. Depending on who was his VP, I could see the Congress impeaching Trump if he got out of hand and started making imperial edicts via executive order like Obama has done and like Hillary has stated she would do - and I feel like the Dems would probably vote with the GOP to convict him in the Senate, allowing whoever was his VP to rise up and take over.

What she said in that video just pissed me off so bad, that I just can't imagine allowing her to have my vote anymore.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Just So Ya Know: Trumps also believes the same thing, history does not lie, people do.

maybe he did once, maybe he lied to the NRA

however, Hillary has always been anti gun

she wants to ban many guns, she praised the English and Australian gun confiscations and she-through her daughter-promised to appoint more radical lesbian justices who hate gun rights and who will overturn established precedent (Heller)

anyone who thinks the second amendment is an important guarantee cannot vote for Hillary
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
if you actually LISTEN to what the lying bitch said-she clearly doesn't believe in a constitutional right of citizens to own guns
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
17,788
Reaction score
6,303
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
... when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..." My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED? I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.

Ummm yes ALL Constitutional Rights are subject to regulation... can you yell fire in a crowded building? Ever heard of slander? How about putting the 10 commandments of state property? The Press is subject to many regulations. trail by jury as well... (many courts don't allow trail by jury in misdemeanor cases)

Now i'll wager a shiny nickel all the 'gun' rubbers who bark at this dog whistle were not going to vote for Clinton way before this...

but if you think Trump gives a rat's rump about 'the little guy's' right to carry firearms... :peace
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ummm yes ALL Constitutional Rights are subject to regulation... can you yell fire in a crowded building? Ever heard of slander? How about putting the 10 commandments of state property? The Press is subject to many regulations. trail by jury as well... (many courts don't allow trail by jury in misdemeanor cases)

Now i'll wager a shiny nickel all the 'gun' rubbers who bark at this dog whistle were not going to vote for Clinton way before this...

but if you think Trump gives a rat's rump about 'the little guy's' right to carry firearms... :peace

pretty pathetic attempt to fluff Hillary's anti gun idiocy.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
17,788
Reaction score
6,303
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
pretty pathetic attempt to fluff Hillary's anti gun idiocy.

Pretty pathetic attempt to make Trump sound like the NRA lie isn't a lie like all his others... :2wave:

But I don't expect much more than that from you. fact is ALL our Constitutional Rights have limits- which was rebutting the OP's claims.

Now I know your elite education leans more to 'noble born' but fact is neither Obama nor Hillary will be King and able to with an airy wave nullify the Constitution.

But nice try... :peace
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ummm yes ALL Constitutional Rights are subject to regulation... can you yell fire in a crowded building? Ever heard of slander? How about putting the 10 commandments of state property? The Press is subject to many regulations. trail by jury as well... (many courts don't allow trail by jury in misdemeanor cases)

Now i'll wager a shiny nickel all the 'gun' rubbers who bark at this dog whistle were not going to vote for Clinton way before this...

but if you think Trump gives a rat's rump about 'the little guy's' right to carry firearms... :peace

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

:shrug:

Oh and btw, the claim you have a right to your reputation calls for you to have a right to control how other peoples speak about you and how other people are affected by it. Also, the idea that somehow I'm responsible for idiots that can't control themselves when I tell them about a fire is implying that somehow I have control over them.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
17,788
Reaction score
6,303
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh and btw, the claim you have a right to your reputation calls for you to control how other peoples speak about you and how other people are affected by it. Also, the idea that somehow I'm responsible for idiots that can't control themselves when I tell them about a fire is implying that somehow I have control over them.

Ok, I got a good laugh out of that but fact is yelling fire is against the law if there is no fire and people get hurt. You do have a right to protect yourself against slander but not against criticism. Regulation doesn't mean prohibition- no matter how loud the 'gun' rubbers howl... :peace
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Pretty pathetic attempt to make Trump sound like the NRA lie isn't a lie like all his others... :2wave:

But I don't expect much more than that from you. fact is ALL our Constitutional Rights have limits- which was rebutting the OP's claims.

Now I know your elite education leans more to 'noble born' but fact is neither Obama nor Hillary will be King and able to with an airy wave nullify the Constitution.

But nice try... :peace

Look-I know its tough to pretend to support a constitutional right that was INTENDED and WRITTEN to prevent ANY federal interference into our right to be armed, when you also are a big fan boy of Leftwing politicians. You have made it perfectly clear that gun rights really don't mean all that much to you because you put the creeping crud of collectivism ahead of the rights of free citizens to be armed at least as well as CIVILIAN cops.

the federal government NEVER was intended to have ANY power to limit what private citizens could own in terms of small arms in their own homes or within their sovereign states but people like you do your best to interfere with that right
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ok, I got a good laugh out of that but fact is yelling fire is against the law if there is no fire and people get hurt. You do have a right to protect yourself against slander but not against criticism. Regulation doesn't mean prohibition- no matter how loud the 'gun' rubbers howl... :peace

Yeah, that's what is called appealing to the law. How do I directly cause idiots to lose control over their emotions and force them to run people over by yelling fire when there is no fire? Please explain to me exactly how I assume control over their person. Also, the claim you have a right to protect yourself against slander does in fact mean that you have a right to control what other people say about you. If you think slander laws doesn't protect people against criticism to some degree then you're wrong.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why can't people understand what the words "congress can pass no law abridging free speech" means? Why do they believe that still leaves an opening to pass laws on speech? How exactly can the founders write an absolute statement forbidding all laws on the subject and yet somehow leave an opening to pass laws on the subject? How exactly does that work? Did someone change the rules of grammar and the definition of words when I wasn't looking?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Why can't people understand what the words "congress can pass no law abridging free speech" means? Why do they believe that still leaves an opening to pass laws on speech? How exactly can the founders write an absolute statement forbidding all laws on the subject and yet somehow leave an opening to pass laws on the subject? How exactly does that work? Did someone change the rules of grammar and the definition of words when I wasn't looking?

statists don't understand that the "fire in a crowded theater" silliness is actions prevented by state government not the federal one
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,631
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why can't people understand what the words "congress can pass no law abridging free speech" means? Why do they believe that still leaves an opening to pass laws on speech? How exactly can the founders write an absolute statement forbidding all laws on the subject and yet somehow leave an opening to pass laws on the subject? How exactly does that work? Did someone change the rules of grammar and the definition of words when I wasn't looking?

Well, people like to change defintions of words all the ****ing time nowadays.

Just look at how people redefined the definition of the word racism. They say it now means prejudice + power.
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
if you actually LISTEN to what the lying bitch said-she clearly doesn't believe in a constitutional right of citizens to own guns

Yep I just listened to it. she says until the ruling by Scalia ( as if it was only him and not the other justices who also ruled the same way ) that there was 'no argument' that government, states and localities had the right to impose 'reasonable regulations'
Well she knows she is lying there. There has always been an argument over that and there always will be.
She then goes on to say that what she has proposed is supported by 90% of the American people and 'more than 75% of responsible gun owners'. Well again we and she knows that's a lie also.
Ive checked every pollster site I could find and I do not find any poll that shows 90% of people support stricter gun control laws in general , let alone her suggestions. in fact I couldn't find one that was greater than 56%.
One of her 'great ideas' is to open up gun manufacturers for lawsuits. so gun company makes a gun, someone buys it or steals it and shoots someone and victim of the shooting can sue the gun company.
So does that set a precedent.. I mean could someone sue the hardware store or say Stanley if someone killed someone with a hammer.

So I will just go with the words you used.. lying bitch.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Yep I just listened to it. she says until the ruling by Scalia ( as if it was only him and not the other justices who also ruled the same way ) that there was 'no argument' that government, states and localities had the right to impose 'reasonable regulations'
Well she knows she is lying there. There has always been an argument over that and there always will be.
She then goes on to say that what she has proposed is supported by 90% of the American people and 'more than 75% of responsible gun owners'. Well again we and she knows that's a lie also.
Ive checked every pollster site I could find and I do not find any poll that shows 90% of people support stricter gun control laws in general , let alone her suggestions. in fact I couldn't find one that was greater than 56%.
One of her 'great ideas' is to open up gun manufacturers for lawsuits. so gun company makes a gun, someone buys it or steals it and shoots someone and victim of the shooting can sue the gun company.
So does that set a precedent.. I mean could someone sue the hardware store or say Stanley if someone killed someone with a hammer.

So I will just go with the words you used.. lying bitch.

she's a gun banning POS scum bag. Pure and simple. anyone who thinks she is no worse than Trump on gun issues is too stupid to own a gun
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,631
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
she's a gun banning POS scum bag. Pure and simple. anyone who thinks she is no worse than Trump on gun issues is too stupid to own a gun
It's the only issue that she's been the most consistent on, anyways.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's the only issue that she's been the most consistent on, anyways.

yeah and I do believe her on that issue. she wants to ban guns, confiscate them if she can and subject gun makers to ruinous law suits based on bogus grounds. She's a piece of turd and will appoint more far left gun haters to the courts
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I have no idea what I'm going to do in November. I was leaning toward Hillary until all the lies and illegal activity was uncovered. I can't stomach the thought of voting for Trump. Voting for anyone other than those two is a waste of my vote, IMHO. Depending on who was his VP, I could see the Congress impeaching Trump if he got out of hand and started making imperial edicts via executive order like Obama has done and like Hillary has stated she would do - and I feel like the Dems would probably vote with the GOP to convict him in the Senate, allowing whoever was his VP to rise up and take over.

What she said in that video just pissed me off so bad, that I just can't imagine allowing her to have my vote anymore.

It is why when I vote I will be skipping over the presidential candidates and voting on the other races and issues.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It is why when I vote I will be skipping over the presidential candidates and voting on the other races and issues.

I think that is really silly given that Hillary is clearly the worst choice on gun rights
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
maybe he did once, maybe he lied to the NRA

however, Hillary has always been anti gun

she wants to ban many guns, she praised the English and Australian gun confiscations and she-through her daughter-promised to appoint more radical lesbian justices who hate gun rights and who will overturn established precedent (Heller)

anyone who thinks the second amendment is an important guarantee cannot vote for Hillary

I understand that, But Trump is not to be trusted and there are so many other issues with him, hence I will skip that part of the election, I see no lesser evil and just prepare for the worst. Just got a second ammo safe and nearly stocked it full in the last month, going to use it one way or the other so might as well. Thinking of getting some lowers for later sale, hey a guy has to take advantage to make a buck when the price skyrockets. Going to be a bumpy few years.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,735
Reaction score
11,510
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I think that is really silly given that Hillary is clearly the worst choice on gun rights

Vote for Trump if you wish, I will Not, nor will I vote for Hillary, either way we are scr*wed.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,748
Reaction score
79,528
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Vote for Trump if you wish, I will Not, nor will I vote for Hillary, either way we are scr*wed.

Every gun banner I have heard on this issue is supporting Hillary. They want her to appoint more gun banners to the court. That is what is going on.
 
Top Bottom