• 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!

Okay. I had to share thiw with everyone for a good laugh

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
6,895
Location
Mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
[h=1]Clinton: ‘I do not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment’[/h]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/3/hillary-clinton-i-do-not-want-repeal-2nd-amendment/

“I do not want to repeal the Second Amendment. I do not want to take anyone’s gun away,” she said. “I just don’t want you to get shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.”

But Mrs. Clinton’s current gun control platform, and some of her past positions, go beyond simply keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people.
On the heels of the Orlando night club shooting earlier this summer, she reiterated her call for a new national ban on assault weapons.

It's only a cold sore.
Check is in the mail.
I will pull out.
 
[h=1]Clinton: ‘I do not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment’[/h]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/3/hillary-clinton-i-do-not-want-repeal-2nd-amendment/



It's only a cold sore.
Check is in the mail.
I will pull out.

I have face book friends who try to convince me that She is not a gun banner even though she wants to ban a type of firearm that has been around for almost 100 years and has 40 million or more in circulation. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that if you can ban a firearm-for public safety grounds-that has been used in less than 2% of the murders, you are setting a precedent to ban everything that is used in more than 2% of the murders.
 
[h=1]Clinton: ‘I do not want to repeal the 2nd Amendment’[/h]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/3/hillary-clinton-i-do-not-want-repeal-2nd-amendment/



It's only a cold sore.
Check is in the mail.
I will pull out.

Prove she's wrong.
 
Prove she's wrong.

“I do not want to repeal the Second Amendment. I do not want to take anyone’s gun away,” she said. “I just don’t want you to get shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” -Hillary Clinton

Do see anything that my contradict itself in her statement? Look closely at how the last sentence seems to be stating that some people can't have guns. That's important.

What if the people affected had guns? Hmmm....??
 
“I do not want to repeal the Second Amendment. I do not want to take anyone’s gun away,” she said. “I just don’t want you to get shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” -Hillary Clinton

Do see anything that my contradict itself in her statement? Look closely at how the last sentence seems to be stating that some people can't have guns. That's important.

What if the people affected had guns? Hmmm....??

So convicted felons and known members of terrorist cell should be able to have guns?
 
I have face book friends who try to convince me that She is not a gun banner even though she wants to ban a type of firearm that has been around for almost 100 years and has 40 million or more in circulation. They are either too stupid or too dishonest to admit that if you can ban a firearm-for public safety grounds-that has been used in less than 2% of the murders, you are setting a precedent to ban everything that is used in more than 2% of the murders.

Any sane person knows that individual constitutional rights should not vary based on state law yet refuse to consider the 2A on par with the right to abortion or SSM. The SCOTUS has allowed federal and state gun bans and permits based on (cosmetic?) features as well as the type of gun (requiring special permits for special guns) or the occupation of the user.
 
So convicted felons and known members of terrorist cell should be able to have guns?

Did these felons serve their time? Did this known terrorist get convicted of any crime?

Btw, how are you going to stop a terrorist from being armed? How does that even work?
 
So convicted felons and known members of terrorist cell should be able to have guns?

Should they be able to roam freely among us? Don't ban/restrict tools - ban/restrict tool abusers.
 
Did these felons serve their time? Did this known terrorist get convicted of any crime?

Btw, how are you going to stop a terrorist from being armed? How does that even work?

Okay; in your view, convicted felons and terrorists should be able to buy guns.

good
 
Should they be able to roam freely among us? Don't ban/restrict tools - ban/restrict tool abusers.

Okay; so you too believe that felons and terrorists should be able to buy guns.

That's two of the right-wing here who believe that.
 
Okay; in your view, convicted felons and terrorists should be able to buy guns.

good

I like how you claim you don't want to take peoples guns away and then come up with a list of people you want to take guns from. That's cute.
 
I like how you claim you don't want to take peoples guns away and then come up with a list of people you want to take guns from. That's cute.

When did I ever say, take people's guns away? got a link?

And you're avoiding the fact that you want felons and terrorists to be able to walk into walmart and buy guns.

that's good thinking
 
When did I ever say, take people's guns away? got a link?

And you're avoiding the fact that you want felons and terrorists to be able to walk into walmart and buy guns.

that's good thinking

People that served their time should have their rights back in full. People that the government believes is a terrorist they need to investigate and leave them alone until they feel they have case for an arrest.
 
Any sane person knows that individual constitutional rights should not vary based on state law yet refuse to consider the 2A on par with the right to abortion or SSM. The SCOTUS has allowed federal and state gun bans and permits based on (cosmetic?) features as well as the type of gun (requiring special permits for special guns) or the occupation of the user.

Judges tend to be politicians and don't like -in many cases-the unwashed masses-having a power that trumps black robes. So even some conservative judges like the idea of their fellow politicians being able to control that power
 
Okay; so you too believe that felons and terrorists should be able to buy guns.

That's two of the right-wing here who believe that.

You either have or or do not have constitutional rights - they can be removed by due process and are typically restored after you have served your sentence. What you appear to favor is no due process only for 2A rights.
 
So convicted felons and known members of terrorist cell should be able to have guns?

The Lying bitch is also on record for saying the following

1) she will appoint justices who will overturn heller. That means she believes that the second amendment does NOT protect an individual right-in other words she agrees with you

2) she is on record, and lobbied for-the reinstatement of the Clinton administration gun ban. If you believe a large number of firearms should be banned from future sales even though those weapons are rare used in crime, you are a gun banner

3) she is on record as praising the British and Australian gun laws. Those laws, combined, not only banned the future sales of all pistols, semi auto rifles, pump shotguns, semi auto shotguns they required confiscation of the weapons so banned. That means the Cankler is on record as wanting confiscation

You lose
 
Prove she's right. Wait, you can't even prove that YOU are right. nevermind.

right

So your OP is an empty uninformed ridiculous assertion.

Thought so.
 
The Lying bitch is also on record for saying the following

1) she will appoint justices who will overturn heller. That means she believes that the second amendment does NOT protect an individual right-in other words she agrees with you

2) she is on record, and lobbied for-the reinstatement of the Clinton administration gun ban. If you believe a large number of firearms should be banned from future sales even though those weapons are rare used in crime, you are a gun banner

3) she is on record as praising the British and Australian gun laws. Those laws, combined, not only banned the future sales of all pistols, semi auto rifles, pump shotguns, semi auto shotguns they required confiscation of the weapons so banned. That means the Cankler is on record as wanting confiscation

You lose
And for a normal person that would be the end of the discussion, but then again we know that stupidity has no limitations.
 
right

So your OP is an empty uninformed ridiculous assertion.

Thought so.

I just don't want to waste time that I can't get back. You can't prove she isn't lying. Of course that is what she does, lies. If one person is a thief or liar and it is well known then people start to wonder about the people that support that thief or liar.
 
I just don't want to waste time that I can't get back. You can't prove she isn't lying. Of course that is what she does, lies. If one person is a thief or liar and it is well known then people start to wonder about the people that support that thief or liar.

You can't prove it. It's an empty, silly an uninformed opinion.

Juuuuust pointing that out, so we're all clear.
 
Non violent ex cons should have all rights restored on a case by case basis.

I wasn't bein choosey: Felons and terrorists - full stop
 
Non violent ex cons should have all rights restored on a case by case basis.
I agree, once someone has paid their debt to society that should be the end of it and all rights restored.
 
I wasn't bein choosey: Felons and terrorists - full stop

you are on record wanting to impose the California level of idiocy on the rest of us

1) you are in favor of imposing an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity. any such limit is not based on any scientific studies or evidence but was (at 10) a number pulled out of the rectum of the Democrat party

2) you are on record as saying that the 10 round limit is suitable and ANY magazine that holds ten or more rounds is ONLY FOR WARFARE. that sort of idiocy is terminal and has doomed any of your gun claims to the dungheap of silliness

3) you are on record demanding that semi automatic magazine fed weapons should be banned. You have never been able to articulate a rational argument for that desire-rather you have said society needs to "Try it" because of "all the problems" those rifles cause. In reality, ALL rifles are used in less than 3% of all murders. So you are LYING.

this crap about banning guns that millions of Americans own merely to TRY TO SEE if it does any good is one of the most mentally deficient arguments I have ever seen
 
Back
Top Bottom