SESSIONS: 2nd Amendment Extinct If Hillary Elected...

[Lutherf]

Could that be what is being interpreted as "overturning the Second Amendment"?

No.

The way this will go down is that assault weapons will be banned and people will still get killed so then handguns will be banned and people will still get killed so then rifles and shotguns will be banned and people will still be killed so then they'll start going after knives.

The problem we have isn't guns. The problem is tolerance of criminal behavior. It's making excuses for inner city violence.

 

[TurtleDude]

No.

The way this will go down is that assault weapons will be banned and people will still get killed so then handguns will be banned and people will still get killed so then rifles and shotguns will be banned and people will still be killed so then they'll start going after knives.

The problem we have isn't guns. The problem is tolerance of criminal behavior. It's making excuses for inner city violence.

and 'more importantly, crime control is not the motivation behind the gun restrictionist movement. Its all about political paybacks against those of us who have voted against the Democrat party ever since the Democrat party tried to pretend that gun control made up for that party's rather lame record on dealing with violent street crime

The Democrat party adopted gun control as a way to pander to the hysterics in the public who constantly demanded something be done and gun control was a way of pandering without alienating the Democrat party's most loyal supporters-blacks, who saw crackdowns on crime as anti black given so much violent street crime was depicted as being caused by blacks

 

[Dittohead not!]

as a libertarian do you support bans on semi auto rifles

do you think the Second amendment stops limiting government action based on how many bullets a magazine can hold ?

We've discussed the Second Amendment at some length already. I don't want to go back there, do you? The issue is whether Hillary Clinton wants to overturn the Second Amendment, this based on having advocated an assault rifle ban. My point is not that assault rifles need to be banned, but that if Clinton is advocating an end to the Second Amendment, then so have a variety of politicians from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No.

The way this will go down is that assault weapons will be banned and people will still get killed so then handguns will be banned and people will still get killed so then rifles and shotguns will be banned and people will still be killed so then they'll start going after knives.

The problem we have isn't guns. The problem is tolerance of criminal behavior. It's making excuses for inner city violence.

Agreed.

Now, does Hillary Clinton want to overturn the Second Amendment? On what is that assertion based?

 

[Lutherf]

Agreed.

Now, does Hillary Clinton want to overturn the Second Amendment? On what is that assertion based?

She already endorses a ban on "assault weapons" and criminal liability for manufacturers whose weapons are used in a crime. There is little doubt that if she doesn't get the results she wants with these things she'll ramrod additional restrictions.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No.

The way this will go down is that assault weapons will be banned and people will still get killed so then handguns will be banned and people will still get killed so then rifles and shotguns will be banned and people will still be killed so then they'll start going after knives.

This is not the UK. This is not AU.
The logistics of a ban on 330 million of ANYTHING are astronomical.
You might as well ban pot, or pornography.
Stop with the paranoid hyperbole.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

She already endorses a ban on "assault weapons" and criminal liability for manufacturers whose weapons are used in a crime. There is little doubt that if she doesn't get the results she wants with these things she'll ramrod additional restrictions.

I agree that the assault weapons ban is stupid because any rifle is an assault weapon.
As far as criminal liability, the tip of the spear on that is smart guns or accessories that can be used to make a firearm "smart".
Gun manufacturers had dabbled with the idea until the NRA had a complete conniption fit and threatened Hell on ANY manufacturer who even dared to utter the words, "smart guns".

But again, all this talk of so called "ram-rodding", have you even bothered to run any numbers on how such a thing would play out? It's pretty basic math, and the math says that it's impossible.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You guys do realize the President is not a King right? There is a system of checks and balances to ensure the President doesn't do things like take your guns. The Supreme Court however can, as the Second Amendment establishes the right to form a militia. And a Supreme Court decision grants gun ownership rights to private citizens. So what it really comes down to for gun rights in America. Accept Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, who is pretty middle of the aisle, Or risk Hillary's Appointee's... Even if Trump wins, I believe he will not, he will likely appoint his sister or something. Who I believe is liberal. Because do not fool yourselves. Trump is not all that Conservative. He is putting on a show, pandering to the people he said he'd pander to if he ever ran. He's a wildcard, who will say anything to get ahead.

So I would say the biggest threat to Gun Ownership Rights, right now, is the United States Congress holding up the Obama nomination. The Biggest threat to the Second Amendment is probably local police stations. They tend to break up militia's as violent terrorist groups. Just saying.

Trump's problem isn't conservatism or lack thereof.
His problem is mental instability.

 

[Lutherf]

This is not the UK. This is not AU.
The logistics of a ban on 330 million of ANYTHING are astronomical.
You might as well ban pot, or pornography.
Stop with the paranoid hyperbole.

The ban you're talking about is already in place in several states and was implemented nationwide 20 years ago though it has since reached its sunset (with no increase in gun crime, I might add). Seattle just implemented an additional tax on the sale of firearms and ammo. The CA assembly just recently passed legislation requiring all transfers of ammunition to go through an FFL. These are all part of an ongoing process to make the acquisition of firearms so difficult that, in effect, it becomes a ban. Furthermore, history shows that when such schemes fail to get the desired results even more draconian tactics are used to effect the desired end.

You also mentioned "smart guns". That's another attempt at an outright ban. New Jersey already has a law on the book prohibiting the sale of any other type of firearm once "smart guns" become available. California has expressed interest in a similar scheme and Obama has expressed a favorable opinion of this kind of thing. While this kind of technology might be a "feel good" deal for the gun control crowd it would not only ban all other common types of firearms but also impose a form of technology that, in all probability, could be constructed in a way to easily be defeated by law enforcement...who, you can be assured, would not be using weapons with the same technology.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The ban you're talking about is already in place in several states and was implemented nationwide 20 years ago though it has since reached its sunset (with no increase in gun crime, I might add).

No, when I said 330 million I was referring to all out bans on ALL GUNS, which seems to be the red meat that single issue gun voters freak out over.
You did not read my reply, you skimmed over ever other word.
I know this because I said that I agreed that the assault weapons ban was stupid.

Seattle just implemented an additional tax on the sale of firearms and ammo. The CA assembly just recently passed legislation requiring all transfers of ammunition to go through an FFL. These are all part of an ongoing process to make the acquisition of firearms so difficult that, in effect, it becomes a ban.

So now you're complaining about taxes and sales restrictions? So everything is a BAN according to you.
A=A=A=A=A=A

Furthermore, history shows that when such schemes fail to get the desired results even more draconian tactics are used to effect the desired end.

History also shows that when fundamentalists are given free reign, sh!t turns real bad real fast.
So you want to talk about history? Let's talk about history. So far, I see states doing what states do.
If you're a constitutional type, you're being hypocritical about states rights.

You also mentioned "smart guns". That's another attempt at an outright ban. New Jersey already has a law on the book prohibiting the sale of any other type of firearm once "smart guns" become available. California has expressed interest in a similar scheme and Obama has expressed a favorable opinion of this kind of thing.

I feel like I am talking to a religious fundamentalist, because everything is a ban to you, no matter what it is.
It's all or nothing with you, yes? That is a fundamentalist position regarding a constitutional right.
The authors all have written extensively on the notion that NO rights are 100% unlimited.
A state can ban sales of any other gun besides smart guns but that still leaves gazillions of non smart legacy weapons.
When seat belts were mandated, they could only sell cars with seat belts but there are still a lot of cars on the road today that did not come with seat belts. They are still being driven. Was there a ban on older cars?

While this kind of technology might be a "feel good" deal for the gun control crowd it would not only ban all other common types of firearms but also impose a form of technology that, in all probability, could be constructed in a way to easily be defeated by law enforcement...who, you can be assured, would not be using weapons with the same technology.

So now you're expecting us to extrapolate every doomsday scenario you can cook up in order to justify a complete halt to ANY and ALL regulations WHATSOEVER, because someone MIGHT do something someday.

Wow.

 

[Lutherf]

No, when I said 330 million I was referring to all out bans on ALL GUNS, which seems to be the red meat that single issue gun voters freak out over.
You did not read my reply, you skimmed over ever other word.
I know this because I said that I agreed that the assault weapons ban was stupid.



So now you're complaining about taxes and sales restrictions? So everything is a BAN according to you.
A=A=A=A=A=A



History also shows that when fundamentalists are given free reign, sh!t turns real bad real fast.
So you want to talk about history? Let's talk about history. So far, I see states doing what states do.
If you're a constitutional type, you're being hypocritical about states rights.



I feel like I am talking to a religious fundamentalist, because everything is a ban to you, no matter what it is.
It's all or nothing with you, yes? That is a fundamentalist position regarding a constitutional right.
The authors all have written extensively on the notion that NO rights are 100% unlimited.
A state can ban sales of any other gun besides smart guns but that still leaves gazillions of non smart legacy weapons.
When seat belts were mandated, they could only sell cars with seat belts but there are still a lot of cars on the road today that did not come with seat belts. They are still being driven. Was there a ban on older cars?



So now you're expecting us to extrapolate every doomsday scenario you can cook up in order to justify a complete halt to ANY and ALL regulations WHATSOEVER, because someone MIGHT do something someday.

Wow.

You seem to be equating a ban with confiscation. I agree, it would be difficult to confiscate 300 million guns. That being said, once a ban is implemented confiscation in one form or another won't be far behind.

You also seem to be concerned about why I suggest that these "reasonable" proposals will all lead to confiscation. Well, it's only paranoia if they're not really out to get you. Take registrations as an example. Once all (or most) lawfully owned firearms are registered through a mandatory background check system the next trick will be to prohibit the transfer of a lawfully owned but grandfathered in firearm to a descendant or other beneficiary upon the owner's death. That type of thing has already been proposed and will constitute confiscation.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What am I supposed to say?
It's almost like you're running around screaming

EBOLA!!! EBOLA!!!

That being said, once a ban is implemented confiscation in one form or another won't be far behind.

How?? Are they going to hire a gazillion extra BATF agents? Take local cops off their usual crime fighting efforts and tell them to go door to door?
Hire a bunch of Boy Scouts? Girl Scouts? Librarians? Jehovah's Witnesses?

No, really...how does "confiscation IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER" actually work?
I want to know because the moment I start thinking about it I see a two trillion dollar programs that has as much success as the war on drugs, and a whole lot more negative connotations and backlash.
I see congress critters both liberal and conservative being shown the door, not by the NRA but by people who simply object to some guy with a badge and a clipboard knocking on their door and saying "We're here for your guns".



Maybe they're going to privatize the effort so that local businesses can make money disarming law abiding Americans.
Yeah, that's gonna work....said NO ONE EVER.

There are simply too many people, liberal and conservative, who do not support the idea.
It's now been proven time and time again.
What most people want is just some kind of responsibility, accountability and maturity.

The extremists on both sides of this issue are making it impossible to get anywhere.
As usual.

 

[Helix]

she's incredibly inept for making non-viable federal gun control proposals a central issue of this election. it's like the Democrats are trying to lose, but i'm not surprised. seems like they are choosing their issue prioritization / messaging by throwing darts at a board while blindfolded.

 

[Lutherf]

What am I supposed to say?
It's almost like you're running around screaming

EBOLA!!! EBOLA!!!



How?? Are they going to hire a gazillion extra BATF agents? Take local cops off their usual crime fighting efforts and tell them to go door to door?
Hire a bunch of Boy Scouts? Girl Scouts? Librarians? Jehovah's Witnesses?

No, really...how does "confiscation IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER" actually work?
I want to know because the moment I start thinking about it I see a two trillion dollar programs that has as much success as the war on drugs, and a whole lot more negative connotations and backlash.
I see congress critters both liberal and conservative being shown the door, not by the NRA but by people who simply object to some guy with a badge and a clipboard knocking on their door and saying "We're here for your guns".



Maybe they're going to privatize the effort so that local businesses can make money disarming law abiding Americans.
Yeah, that's gonna work....said NO ONE EVER.

There are simply too many people, liberal and conservative, who do not support the idea.
It's now been proven time and time again.
What most people want is just some kind of responsibility, accountability and maturity.

The extremists on both sides of this issue are making it impossible to get anywhere.
As usual.

Well, maybe if you hyperventilated a little less and read a little more you'd have some of these answers.

Once registration (through mandatory background checks and/or medical "necessity") hits confiscation will happen through attrition. Like I said, if all guns have to pass through an FFL for transfer then the ones that are no longer deemed acceptable will be confiscated at that point. Over time more and more guns will end up on the prohibited list, more will get confiscated and little by little the citizens will be disarmed.

 

[Dittohead not!]

She already endorses a ban on "assault weapons" and criminal liability for manufacturers whose weapons are used in a crime. There is little doubt that if she doesn't get the results she wants with these things she'll ramrod additional restrictions.

How is there so little doubt about that?

again: Lots of pols have advocated an assault weapon ban, including some prominent Republicans.

 

[Lutherf]

How is there so little doubt about that?

again: Lots of pols have advocated an assault weapon ban, including some prominent Republicans.

The references to the UK and AU are commonplace in the gun control liturgy. The laws such as the SAFE Act and other proposals all point that direction. It's like looking at this big black cloud, hearing the thunder, seeing the lightning and still having the "reasonable restrictions" crowd telling us it's going to be sunny and 75 all week.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The references to the UK and AU are commonplace in the gun control liturgy. The laws such as the SAFE Act and other proposals all point that direction. It's like looking at this big black cloud, hearing the thunder, seeing the lightning and still having the "reasonable restrictions" crowd telling us it's going to be sunny and 75 all week.

After a few years of hearing the thunder, and no storms approach, one begins to realize that the noise is coming from the local airport.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, maybe if you hyperventilated a little less and read a little more you'd have some of these answers.

Once registration (through mandatory background checks and/or medical "necessity") hits confiscation will happen through attrition. Like I said, if all guns have to pass through an FFL for transfer then the ones that are no longer deemed acceptable will be confiscated at that point. Over time more and more guns will end up on the prohibited list, more will get confiscated and little by little the citizens will be disarmed.

That will never pass.
You're inventing things that you can use to justify opposing ALL regulations.
Sorry, but that kind of fundamentalism, taken together with the kind of ideology being spread BY extremists, is unsustainable.
And, you're projecting.
You're accusing me of hyperventilating. I'm laughing, because your position is an extreme one.
And lastly, "over time more and more guns?"
Yeah right, so let's extrapolate those numbers again...
300 million firearms, and each time you have to create a new classification, you have to PAY to run all those freshly banned firearms through the system. You have to pay the people who do the work, you have to pay for the transportation and processing, and you have to pay for the disposal.

States will not have the budgets for it, and most states will refuse to earmark the budget.
This sort of thing isn't expensive in a nation of twenty or thirty million people, particularly if they are concentrated over a small handful of cities. Once you start talking about large populations spread out over tens of thousands of localities, it starts skyrocketing.

Again, the war on drugs...zero success.
That's the benchmark for any kind of stupid "gun confiscation" program, en masse or EVEN INCREMENTAL.
If the programs cannot show any success, they will be DEFUNDED, by conservatives and even by some liberals.

Don't attempt to rattle my cage by suggesting I am hyperventilating, just because your argument sounds more and more hysterical with each successive post.

We're supposed to find common ground, but if your position is so extreme that anything besides 100% deregulated is considered "gun grabbing" then there is absolutely no hope of finding any. I have heard each and every argument you're bringing in here for YEARS. I am not new to this issue by any stretch.

And I AM a gun owner, so it's not like I look down on gun owners.

 

[TurtleDude]

Agreed.

Now, does Hillary Clinton want to overturn the Second Amendment? On what is that assertion based?

you seem to think that she doesn't want to overturn it unless she says so.

actions are louder then words

when the Lying Bitch claims that Heller should be overturned

that "assault weapons" need to be banned and that the English and Australian laws are a great idea that is calling for an end to the Second amendment's prohibitions on federal action

 

[TurtleDude]

How is there so little doubt about that?

again: Lots of pols have advocated an assault weapon ban, including some prominent Republicans.

assholes aren't confined to the Democrat party, when it comes to guns they just have more of them

 

[Dittohead not!]

you seem to think that she doesn't want to overturn it unless she says so.

actions are louder then words

when the Lying Bitch claims that Heller should be overturned

that "assault weapons" need to be banned and that the English and Australian laws are a great idea that is calling for an end to the Second amendment's prohibitions on federal action

Oh.
I was hoping that she wasn't quite so anti Second Amendment, given that she is most likely the only alternative to Donald Trump.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh.
I was hoping that she wasn't quite so anti Second Amendment, given that she is most likely the only alternative to Donald Trump.

she's as bad a candidate on guns as we have ever seen. worse than her husband and as bad as Obama.

 

[Dittohead not!]

she's as bad a candidate on guns as we have ever seen. worse than her husband and as bad as Obama.

None of whom were able to confiscate guns. This issue is much like abortion in that neither the pro life and pro choice presidents can do much to further their agenda.

 

[TurtleDude]

None of whom were able to confiscate guns. This issue is much like abortion in that neither the pro life and pro choice presidents can do much to further their agenda.

lets think this through. Hilary has brayed about overturning Heller with another Sotomayor replacing Scalia. Now if Heller is reversed, and the Democrats have the votes, what would stop another idiotic "assault weapon ban"? and if you ban rifles that are used in less than 2% of all the violent crimes (and that is all rifles-common 22 rim fire rifles are used in more crime than the scary looking AR and AK style semi autos) you must believe you can ban handguns that are used in 85% or more of the firearm related crimes. and while confiscation might be off the table, the ban means you cannot legally ever use the firearm in public and you are pretty much guaranteed to be arrested if you use it in self defense.

think about that

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Trump just keeps looking better and better the more I look into Hillary's policies.