• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

If you enjoy your constitutional rights don't vote for Hillary.

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,799
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ "This Week": “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right...”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.


Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun. Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence. Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.

Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer. In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun. In New Jersey, it usually adds $100. It is as low as $60 in Washington State.

On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes. As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.

After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns. That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn't be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.

It's time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?

Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president | Fox News

Oh noes! Hitlery is going to take our GUNZ :eek:
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm sure that nothing even close to the necessary support exists, or that it will any time soon. Most Americans--that is, most except for the collectivist lumps in the lumpenproletariat, who are un-American and have a taste for totalitarian rule--understand that the individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to preserving our liberties.

Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?

In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,799
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Deleted
 
Last edited:

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?

In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?

Factual history is not your strong points. At the end of prohibition (another example of hysterical assholes demanding legislation) there were some 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do. So using fraudulent methods and propaganda the commerce clause was used to create work instead of letting 5000 now useless cops go and the resultant fall out of bad publicity, loss of popularity and votes. Don't you know anything about governments especially your own?

So FAIL it has nothing to do with the 2A and was passed in one of the most fraudulent ways rivalling the paper monetary system and 9/11. Non-vigilant citizens get the laws they deserve.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK then why did they make the national firearms act a tax to prevent them from getting the weapons. Why not just say those weapons are not allowed?

Because that was not the intention. It was to create work for 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do.

I wouldn't just say "blah blah blah" and make that my second amendment.

Amazing how many idiots do not think like the founding fathers and claim to know better.
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Factual history is not your strong points. At the end of prohibition (another example of hysterical assholes demanding legislation) there were some 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do. So using fraudulent methods and propaganda the commerce clause was used to create work instead of letting 5000 now useless cops go and the resultant fall out of bad publicity, loss of popularity and votes. Don't you know anything about governments especially your own?

So FAIL it has nothing to do with the 2A and was passed in one of the most fraudulent ways rivalling the paper monetary system and 9/11. Non-vigilant citizens get the laws they deserve.

Thank you for teaching me how this came to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh noes! Hitlery is going to take our GUNZ :eek:

What will Hillary do and then stop for ever?

See if you can answer that or are you going to run and hide?
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Voting for Hillary is like chickens rooting for Col Saunders.
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because that was not the intention. It was to create work for 5000 moonshine cops with nothing to do.



Amazing how many idiots do not think like the founding fathers and claim to know better.

I'm really just trying to validate that the Second Amendment is poorly written as my opinion. I am truly an idiot. My parents genetics were not that strong. And they raise me very poorly. And I've made very poor choices in my life. However I am trying to learn as I can. And right now I'm just trying to learn how big machine guns got banned when they are a firearm. And how this was claimed constitutional by our Second Amendment. And is this validate my point it is poorly written in my opinion after I figure it out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Voting for Hillary is like chickens rooting for Col Saunders.

So not voting for Hillary would favor trump since no third choice will be prevalent and less Gary Johnson's campaign takes off more than it is currently. So why would you want to help trump by this logic? And if your Trump supporter care to share why?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,084
Reaction score
38,842
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity.

in other words, you are a gun banner and wan the second amendment to be obliterated so that the ruling party can ban any gun it wants as long as it has the votes to do so

Agreed.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the constitution that needs to be updated, adjusted, changed, or rewritten. The constitution was carefully written not to tie itself to any technological changes, but rather closely tied to principals of individual liberties, individual freedoms, and curtailing, controlling, government power and abuse of that power. All these principals apply equally today as they did the day they were written.

What SOCUTS needs more than anything else is to have one or more Textualists appointed so the nation and it's laws remain true to the principals embodied in the Constitution.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,769
Reaction score
7,410
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well thank you for sharing this with me!
I'm happy to know that the candidate I will probably vote for shares my view of the Second Amendment. The second amendment is outdated and needs to be rewritten. I'm going to vote for the candidate that would be open to that if given the opportunity.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how would one "rewrite" the Second Amendment? What would be the process?
 

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
And how would one "rewrite" the Second Amendment? What would be the process?

The process is:

(Article V of the Constitution)

So, 2/3 of both houses, or 2/3 of the states propose the amendment, then 3/4 of the states have to approve it.

They just might be able to come up with something that works after such a process, but it would have to have enormous support.[/QUOTE]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Voting for Hillary is like chickens rooting for Col Saunders.

On the other hand, without Col Sanders we would not need so many chickens and they would never exist, never learn how good fresh corn tastes for breakfast. ;)
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Sunday, George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ "This Week": “But that's not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right...”

But to anyone familiar with the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Clinton clearly indicated that she would appoint Supreme Court Justices who will allow gun bans.


Stephanopoulos also asked Hillary on Sunday about her support in 1993 for a 25 percent sales tax on handguns. This is enough to add a hundred or more dollars to the price of a gun. Clinton wouldn’t say if she still supported such a tax, but she appeared to justify the proposal by talking about the costs of gun violence. Of course, she has never acknowledged the fact that guns are used to stop crimes 4 to 5 times more often than they are used to commit them.

Hillary never mentions it, but the new background checks that she keeps pushing will also make guns more costly and not make us safer. In Washington and New York City, expanding background checks to private transfers will add at least $125 to the cost of obtaining a gun. In New Jersey, it usually adds $100. It is as low as $60 in Washington State.

On Sunday, Hillary also pushed the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes. As her rival Bernie Sanders, of all people, has explained: “If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and the murderer kills somebody with a gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer.” Even if Sanders exaggerates when he says that Hillary’s proposal will eliminate guns in the U.S., everyone knows that this change in rules will raise the cost of guns and put many out of business.

After adding up all these fees, taxes, and liabilities, few Americans are going to be able to afford guns. That is especially true for the people who need guns the most for protection — poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas. It wouldn't be surprising if some otherwise law-abiding citizens resort to buying guns illegally.

It's time for someone to ask Clinton a simple question: Won’t overturning the Heller decision make gun bans possible again? If so, exactly how is Donald Trump’s statement wrong?

Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president | Fox News

The Republicans have really created a mess by making that man Presidential candidate.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
67,194
Reaction score
38,436
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I imagine too that there are a lot of Democrats who think their party is ill-served by having Hillary Clinton as their nominee.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Republicans have really created a mess by making that man Presidential candidate.

The question is how many like his ideas in preference to gun grabbing socialist Hilliary.

There is no doubt he has a far better grasp of efficiency and tossing out dead wood.
 

Patrickt

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
3,595
Reaction score
1,096
Location
Oaxaca, Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you believe there's a misunderstanding in our country of the amendment?

In the 1930s we passed a national firearms act on weapons to keep them out of the hands of citizens. They did this by creating a tax that was so high that citizens could not afford the weapons. Why did we not just bar them at the time?

And for accuracy, 1934 was when the socialist President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House and the Democrat Party owned both houses of Congress.

The answer is simple. The Democrats could keep Jim Crow laws alive, keep Jews fleeing Hitler out of the U.S. but they couldn't outlaw private ownership of firearms.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm really just trying to validate that the Second Amendment is poorly written as my opinion. I am truly an idiot. My parents genetics were not that strong. And they raise me very poorly. And I've made very poor choices in my life. However I am trying to learn as I can. And right now I'm just trying to learn how big machine guns got banned when they are a firearm. And how this was claimed constitutional by our Second Amendment. And is this validate my point it is poorly written in my opinion after I figure it out.

My humble apology the arrogant assholes of gun control bring out the worst in me. I should not tar all with the same brush. You see such people are totally incapable of realising they are in error nor will their beliefs allow then to ever recognise that. Often called zealots but in truth people inculcated by propaganda.

It was not claimed as constitutional but sold on the basis of crime fighting and taking Thompson's and other stuff out of the hands of criminals. It was claimed government had the right to TAX guns. That even though the prohibition laws had all been repealed by 1933. The organised crime violence, hijackings, turf wars and leadership grabs brought on totally by prohibition lead to organised crime, widespread corruption to the highest levels and the most violent period the US has suffered. Duped and lied to people were ready to accept the falsely promised relief. Much the same as gun control uses crime and tragic killings today.

Turtledude can give you a better perspective from a legal point of view.

The 2A is written in two parts one a preamble and the other the protection of the right. The preamble taken with the Declaration of Independence is an explanation of why. A common mistake is the meaning of regulated, it means well organised, well equipped and well functioning.

The right protection is great wording with one small exception. It is not possible to prove a negative. Nobody can say for certain that a gun control law cannot be found that does not infringe the right. Thus honest people must accept that it is not unlimited. Gun control expands on this to mean incursions are included, that is totally false. It is the only clause to use the term shall not be infringed for good reason. It means inviolate to any measure
 
Last edited:

CivicED

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2016
Messages
166
Reaction score
43
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
My humble apology the arrogant assholes of gun control bring out the worst in me. I should not tar all with the same brush. You see such people are totally incapable of realising they are in error nor will their beliefs allow then to ever recognise that. Often called zealots but in truth people inculcated by propaganda.

It was not claimed as constitutional but sold on the basis of crime fighting and taking Thompson's and other stuff out of the hands of criminals. It was claimed government had the right to TAX guns. That even though the prohibition laws had all been repealed by 1933. The organised crime violence, hijackings, turf wars and leadership grabs brought on totally by prohibition lead to organised crime, widespread corruption to the highest levels and the most violent period the US has suffered. Duped and lied to people were ready to accept the falsely promised relief. Much the same as gun control uses crime and tragic killings today.

Turtledude can give you a better perspective from a legal point of view.

The 2A is written in two parts one a preamble and the other the protection of the right. The preamble taken with the Declaration of Independence is an explanation of why. A common mistake is the meaning of regulated, in means well organised, well equipped and well functioning.

The right protection is great wording with one small exception. It is not possible to prove a negative. Nobody can say for certain that a gun control law cannot be found that does not infringe the right. Thus honest people must accept that it is not unlimited. Gun control expands on this to mean incursions are included, that is totally false. It is the only clause to use the term shall not be infringed for good reason. It means inviolate to any measure

I copied this to my Facebook to keep. You have truly inspired me to continue to try to be humble and accepting of others views. It is very hard to discuss political topics in my country and I fear that is causing them to devolve.
I value your knowledge you shared with me!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I copied this to my Facebook to keep. You have truly inspired me to continue to try to be humble and accepting of others views. It is very hard to discuss political topics in my country and I fear that is causing them to devolve.
I value your knowledge you shared with me!

I only hope I did as well as you think I did. I have nearly 20 years of doing battle with gun control in more than one country. One of the last out posts is the thorn in the side the US represents. Unfortunately like all countries before that have fallen to gun control the US firearm organisations have no idea of the power of propaganda or how to fight it. Virtually all are self interest groups and see protection of rights as somebody else's job or the task of lawyers. Little do they realise this is a fight upon which the outcome is totally dependent on public support.

The biggest challenge is to change 200 years of incorrect mindset caused by self interest groups. ie selling guns, promoting services, sports, facilities and antagonising people with more guns being better. It's the stupid principle of curing a fear of heights by recommending parachute jumping or trying to help a person who fears snakes by taking them to a snake petting zoo.

When it all boils down to who is really trying to produce a safer country and fight crime and that is what the public need to know. Will gun control make them safer or not. Is the alternative of freedom to own arms believable as a better option.
 
Top Bottom