• 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!

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

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

trump may suck as a president, he maybe just mediocre and there is an outside chance he might be good. If you are a gun owner and you actually care about continuing to shoot recreationally, keep guns for self defense etc, Hilary is guaranteed to be awful. and there is no doubt about that. all the gun ban organizations are salivating over the thought of Cankles being elected and appointing more far left gun hating anti male nominees to the supreme court
 
Every single complaint about what Hillary Clinton is supposedly going to do about guns has been made about Obama too, you know.
 
Every single complaint about what Hillary Clinton is supposedly going to do about guns has been made about Obama too, you know.

yeah and the nightmare the dems experience in 94 is what kept Harry Reid from trying to impose any more gun control. Once the GOP got control of the house, Obama was castrated in his ability to impose federal gun control laws. So he did what he could by appointing to gun haters to the supreme court

its fun watching left wing anti gun Hilary supporters trying to pretend she's not a gun banner when one of the few things she actually has been consistent on over the last 24 years is her hatred of the NRA, gun owners and our gun rights.

if you think that hilary would not try to ban guns if she had the votes and figured she wouldn't hurt her re-election or election chances and that of her party, then you are either incredibly ignorant of her or just being dishonest
 
You might want to look at his past also.

trump has been inconsistent on gun rights-he has veered toward the pro rights side recently. Hilary has been consistently and militantly anti gun all of her life.
 
Yeah, yeah. That's the currency of the Right: fear. Fear, brought to you by the same fine folks who brought you negrophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and homophobia.

How long have you held the Second Amendment in contempt?
 
if you think that hilary would not try to ban guns if she had the votes and figured she wouldn't hurt her re-election or election chances and that of her party, then you are either incredibly ignorant of her or just being dishonest

Most of the pseudo-liberal drones taking up space in this country are poorly educated, not very bright, hostile to the country they live in, and strangers to the truth. Because of that, I always find myself wondering if the antidemocratic, un-American positions they take are the product of ignorance, stupidity, lack of patriotism, or dishonesty. Maybe some of these specimens will chime in here and enlighten me.
 

Here's a few things for you to think about as to why people think that Hillary will be the end of the 2nd Amendment if elected as POTUS.

1: SCOTUS: What do you think will happen if Hillary appoints, and gets a SCOTUS judge that believes that the 2nd Amendment is meant only for the Militia and is not an individual Right? What happens if Heller is overturned? This election cycle isn't just about Scalia's spot on SCOTUS either. It is also about the spots that are more than likely going to be opening up with in the next 4-8 years. (assuming, god forbid, Hillary gets elected a 2nd time).

Anthony Kennedy, born in 1936 currently 80 years old. The odds of him not dying in the next 4 years are doable, but slim. The odds of him not living through the next 8 years is extremely slim. Chances are, he'll be replaced before Hillary ends her first term.
Clarence Thomas, born in 1948 currently 68 years old. The odds of him not dying in the next 4-8 years is much greater than Kennedy's, but its still possible, and its also possible he'll retire. Chances of him being replaced due to death/retirement by the end of Hillary's first term: still possible.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, born in 1933 currently 83 years old. The odds of her not dying in the next 4 years is less than Kennedy's. Even less through the next 8 years. Chances are, she'll be replaced before Hillary ends her first term.
Stephen Breyer, born in 1938 currently 78 years old. The odds of him not dying in the next 4 years is very slightly less than Kennedy's. The odds of him living through the next 8 years is also extremely slim. Chances are, he'll be replaced before Hillary ends her first term.

That's 4 SCOTUS judges that more than likely will not survive or will possibly retire during Hillary's first term as President. 3 of them are damn near guaranteed. And this isn't even accounting for Scalia's seat. The odds that Hillary will do her very best to get a SCOTUS judge appointed that will overrule Heller and interpret the 2nd Amendment as being only applicable to militia's has risen to pretty much an astronomical point. Even when she gets to appoint 1 judge (Scalia's seat) the chances rise by a quite a bit. Getting to replace 3, maybe 4 judges? Based on Hillary's stance on guns it is no small feat to know that she would appoint such judges. Appointing such judges will mean that the 2nd Amendment will be interpreted as being only for the militia and not an individual Right.

2: You have argued that guns won't be confiscated. What others have tried to explain to you is that confiscation will not happen over night. Those that are against guns know that cannot happen. What CAN happen though is confiscation through attrition. It is a long term plan that can span decades and is aimed at several "fronts". One front is aimed at expense of a gun. You make a gun so expensive that only people with middle income or higher can afford a gun. You do this via taxation and regulation of the gun industry. Once poor people can no longer afford a gun you go even further and make it to where even middle income people cannot afford it.

A second front of that attrition is aimed at the perception of guns in the eyes of people. You do this by making guns seem like more than what they are, which is a tool. You do that by claiming that guns are the reason that we have crime. In other words you shift the blame away from people and onto guns. Make them seem as terrible as possible. Why do you think anti-gun politicians holler the most when mass shootings happen? Making them seems as terrible as possible is a time tested way of making more and more people dislike something. The more people dislike something the easier it is to legislate against. Once legislation becomes easier you can enact laws like gun registration. That lets them know WHO has guns. Maybe not everyone as there will be those that defy such registration. But it will for the majority. You then ban certain guns, but most certainly not all...just certain "types" of guns. You also enact legislation that bars people from inheriting guns that are banned. Such guns must be turned into the local authorities after the death of the owner. This eliminates the grandfathered guns that survived the gun ban. And its done over time. You then, later on, ban other certain types of guns. Which again thanks to that law that prohibits inheritance of a gun eventually gets turned into the authorities.

And so on and so forth.

You might think that this is impossible to do. Short term you are right. Long term however you are wrong. And that is what anti-gun folks are planning for. They know confiscation cannot be done immediately. Dianne Feinstein tried that and it failed. But confiscation over a period of time through "reasonable" legislation CAN be done. One just has to be patient.

5k limit shortens this post.
 
All of that works both ways, you know.
Over a period of time, people will learn to make guns, people will learn to network.
Over a long term, people will continue to fight any SCOTUS ruling that overturns Heller or any other decision.
So when you say "long term", if you're talking forty years, I'll be dead by then, and you might be too.
I cannot make policy from the grave.

I remain confident that my guns will remain in my hands for use as I see fit for the rest of my days.
If we cannot actually hammer out reasoned policy on guns that is robust enough to survive liberal presidents and reasonable enough to not get out of hand under conservative presidents then I have bad news for you...it will mean that we, the American people, will have become too stupid to deserve the rights of the Second Amendment.

FDR didn't gun grab, and neither did Truman, Kennedy, LBJ or Carter.
So to argue that this is a danger strictly from liberal leadership is folly, it's a danger that comes from stupid people having stupid expectations and making stupid policy, and stupid reactionary counter policy in return.

The day both sides finally realize that this is the kind of problem that doesn't get solved by blood feud adversarialism is the day we hammer out a solution.

PS: Hilz is not my first choice, but that's another thread altogether.
 
All of that works both ways, you know.
Over a period of time, people will learn to make guns, people will learn to network.
Over a long term, people will continue to fight any SCOTUS ruling that overturns Heller or any other decision.
So when you say "long term", if you're talking forty years, I'll be dead by then, and you might be too.
I cannot make policy from the grave.

I remain confident that my guns will remain in my hands for use as I see fit for the rest of my days.

What about your kid's hands? Will they still be holding the guns they inherited from you? Or your kid's kids? Those that are defending the 2nd Amendment isn't just defending it for themselves, but defending our future generations rights to that 2nd Amendment. You may not be able to make policy after you're dead. But you can help make policy that lasts generations. Just like the founders of this country did.

And yes, I agree that it can work both ways. But there's only one way that it should work. Personally, I'm trying to make sure that it works out the way it should.

If we cannot actually hammer out reasoned policy on guns that is robust enough to survive liberal presidents and reasonable enough to not get out of hand under conservative presidents then I have bad news for you...it will mean that we, the American people, will have become too stupid to deserve the rights of the Second Amendment.

What is or isn't considered "reasoned"? To Dianne Feinstein "reasoned" is to ban all guns: "Mr. and Misses America, turn em all in!" is what she stated outright. You and I might not consider that "reasoned" but to her it is. And to whoever else her or others like her convince other people to think. I don't consider such people stupid. Ignorant maybe. But not stupid.

Besides, being stupid is not an excuse of not having a Right.

FDR didn't gun grab, and neither did Truman, Kennedy, LBJ or Carter.
So to argue that this is a danger strictly from liberal leadership is folly, it's a danger that comes from stupid people having stupid expectations and making stupid policy, and stupid reactionary counter policy in return.

The day both sides finally realize that this is the kind of problem that doesn't get solved by blood feud adversarialism is the day we hammer out a solution.

PS: Hilz is not my first choice, but that's another thread altogether.

Funny thing...guns shouldn't even be ON the table to begin with. We have a criminal problem. A problem that is due to several factors like education, recidivism, mental instability, and economics. We should be focusing on the causes of crime. That alone would reduce crime, including crimes committed with guns, by a hundred fold if done right. And it can all be done without once mentioning the word "gun".

Anyways, like I said previously, the plan isn't a short term one. It's long term. So you won't be able to say that ONE particular politician "grabbed guns". It will be through the efforts of multiple politicians across many administrations. Hillary may not "grab guns". But she can lay the pavement down, or add to the existing one, of getting guns essentially banned further on down the road. Getting SCOTUS judges appointed that will essentially overturn Heller is just one stone in a very long road.
 
I am not too overly concerned about Hillary and the 2A.

Even Bill warned people about leaving the subject of GUNS alone at one time.

Not only that, few law enforcement types in gun friendly states will enforce anything Hillary says in that arena. They have already defied Obama.

As in the OP's post, she might try it with executive orders, but as we all know, they can be all undone on day two of another new Prez. So at the worst, they will only be in effect for 4 years or less. I say or less, because I just know Hillary or Bill will screw up AGAIN, if they are back in the white House, but this time, I feel their over-the-top arrogance will put them under.

The American public is already had their fill with 8 years of Obama's appointees arrogance.

:soap HERE IS WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT........:ranton:

Yet another (how many has it been now?)...yet another ...

a) PANIC buying spree of completely insane gun sellers selling anything that goes BANG for 5 times what it is worth.

b) artificially induced shortage of .22 ammo. Hell, it took us about 4 years to overcome this last one.

c) anything for an AR type rifle going for insane prices. I still have a page from the Cheaper Than Dirt catalog where they charged $130 for just 1 magazine that normally went for $25.

d) going to a gun show and having those idiot gun runners say yet again..."better buy it now before it gets banned".

e) going to a gun show and having those idiot gun runners say yet again..."better buy in now before the price gets even higher", yet they are the ones making the price get even higher. I laughed my ass off when I saw how they took it in the shorts when they could not off load a $700 rifle they bought for $900, and tried to sell for $1200.

:rantoff:

So, NO, it is not Hillary that gives me concern, it is my own gun people sticking it to me like the last time, that concerns me most.

The fear and panic was started by them and is perpetuated by these damned "gun runners" :2mad: that are not firearms enthusiasts, but shysters out to make a dishonest buck selling overpriced stuff.

Ask any gun enthusiast you know. After Sandy Hook they came out of the woodwork and were everywhere. Things have just now started to settle down to normal.
 
Last edited:
attachment.php




Every single election cycle....every single time....it's the same pathetic crap over and over and over again...

Ya know, for such well armed people, many of you are the biggest damned scaredy-cats I've ever seen.

Christ man....grow a pair.

May I borrow that picture the next time a leftist makes...yet one more..."just like Hitler" thread about someone they do not like?
 
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

I'm thinking about it.
And I've concluded that it's about as likely as overturning Roe V. Wade.

and a lot of people are pretty passionate about overturning that as well.

and Roe V. Wade is a decision of the Supreme Court, and not a Constitutional Amendment that has been around for over two centuries.

and Donald Trump is still far more dangerous than Hillary Clinton.
 
Trump just keeps looking better and better the more I look into Hillary's policies.

Which Trump? The one who claims to be a conservative, or the one who has the same stance on assault weapons that Hillary has?

Or, maybe the one who used to be a Hillary supporter?

Trump is a loose cannon. He has taken more positions than the Kamasutra.
 
Why should anyone here think you do not share Mrs. Clinton's obvious contempt for the Second Amendment? You certainly seem to.

Read my posts again.

I think Trump is worse than Hillary.

and I think the Second is safe from her. Remember, Obama was going to come and confiscate all the guns for the past seven years now, and it hasn't happened. It won't in the next four if Clinton becomes president. Then, in 2020, we'll have yet another chance to get it right.
 
I'm thinking about it.
And I've concluded that it's about as likely as overturning Roe V. Wade.

and a lot of people are pretty passionate about overturning that as well.

and Roe V. Wade is a decision of the Supreme Court, and not a Constitutional Amendment that has been around for over two centuries.

and Donald Trump is still far more dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

I disagree. I cannot see Hilary being a better candidate for anyone who is a RW Libertarian or even a LW Libertarian. Only on abortion or gay rights is she clearly better

Nothing else.
 
I disagree. I cannot see Hilary being a better candidate for anyone who is a RW Libertarian or even a LW Libertarian. Only on abortion or gay rights is she clearly better

Nothing else.

Surely you're not going to post that you think Donald Trump is a Libertarian?
 
Which Trump? The one who claims to be a conservative, or the one who has the same stance on assault weapons that Hillary has?

Or, maybe the one who used to be a Hillary supporter?

Trump is a loose cannon. He has taken more positions than the Kamasutra.

I am still going to wait and see. So far there is nothing about Hillary I like or believe in. I think she is lying party puppet and her only redeeming quality is we will will have a woman as president. I just wish it was any other woman. She has been bought and paid for by the rich and powerful as well as special interest. The hard working independent business person is the last person she will help. She supports big government, big business, and the 1% she hopes one day to be a part of. Her immigration policy will flood this country with cheap labor with no respect for our laws that will continue to destroy the unions and the middle class.

I am willing to take a chance on Trump over a someone who will surely cut my throat. I would take Obama for 4 more years over her.
 
I'm thinking about it.
And I've concluded that it's about as likely as overturning Roe V. Wade.

and a lot of people are pretty passionate about overturning that as well.

and Roe V. Wade is a decision of the Supreme Court, and not a Constitutional Amendment that has been around for over two centuries.

and Donald Trump is still far more dangerous than Hillary Clinton.

The Court already overruled parts Roe v. Wade in Casey twenty-four years ago. Most importantly, it stopped claiming abortion was a fundamental right, which had caused government actions involving it to be reviewed under the very demanding "strict scrutiny" standard.

I don't know why you think Heller would be hard to overrule, since it was a 5-4 decision. Anyone who has read the main dissenting opinion realizes that if it had been the majority opinion, the right to keep and bear arms would mean little or nothing to individual Americans. That opinion interprets the Second Amendment so narrowly that it almost reads it out of existence. In rough terms, it says any restriction on the right should be constitutional as long as it does not interfere with the existence of a militia. Nothing is to prevent a Court with another justice or two who agrees with the dissenters in Heller from adopting their position in some new case.

If you think the fact something is in a constitutional amendment guarantees it, you should study what the Court did to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. That clause has been pretty much a dead letter ever since.
 
I am not too overly concerned about Hillary and the 2A.

Even Bill warned people about leaving the subject of GUNS alone at one time.

Not only that, few law enforcement types in gun friendly states will enforce anything Hillary says in that arena. They have already defied Obama.

(Text shortened by 5000 character limit)

The American public is already had their fill with 8 years of Obama's appointees arrogance.

:soap HERE IS WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT........

Yet another (how many has it been now?)...yet another ...

a) PANIC buying spree of completely insane gun sellers selling anything that goes BANG for 5 times what it is worth.

b) artificially induced shortage of .22 ammo. Hell, it took us about 4 years to overcome this last one.

c) anything for an AR type rifle going for insane prices. I still have a page from the Cheaper Than Dirt catalog where they charged $130 for just 1 magazine that normally went for $25.

d) going to a gun show and having those idiot gun runners say yet again..."better buy it now before it gets banned".

e) going to a gun show and having those idiot gun runners say yet again..."better buy in now before the price gets even higher", yet they are the ones making the price get even higher. I laughed my ass off when I saw how they took it in the shorts when they could not off load a $700 rifle they bought for $900, and tried to sell for $1200.


So, NO, it is not Hillary that gives me concern, it is my own gun people sticking it to me like the last time, that concerns me most.

The fear and panic was started by them and is perpetuated by these damned "gun runners" :2mad: that are not firearms enthusiasts, but shysters out to make a dishonest buck selling overpriced stuff.

Ask any gun enthusiast you know. After Sandy Hook they came out of the woodwork and were everywhere. Things have just now started to settle down to normal.

:lamo "Mr. Obama" has been velly velly good for the gun industry, methinks.
What chew think, mang? :lamo

All I know is, my used Makarov cost me $135.00 in 2002.
I felt like an antique myself with an old snub nosed police .38 so for me the Mak was a step up.
I saw an identical one on sale for THREE NINETY a few weeks before I moved out of Texas.
And the ammo? It's like buying tiny gold bullions.

I think the entire gun industry should thank whoever dreamed up the concept of Mr. Obama "comin fer yer gunz" because
not only are their "moar gunz", the folks selling them are rolling in dough.

I haven't gone hunting since I moved back to Cali because ammo is too damn expensive.
I probably will at some point but still, it's the hysteria.
All the hand wringing about how this or that person might "lay the pavement down" is feeding a kind of hysterical paranoia not seen since the Red Scare of the 1950's.
But it's damn good for jacking up prices.

SCOTUS's who might overturn Heller? How about SCOTUS's who might criminalize journalism?
Wyoming just passed a law making it a felony to document evidence of pollution.
https://legiscan.com/WY/text/SF0012/id/1151882

It wouldn't hold up in court right now if challenged, but I bet a Trump appointee will make sure that it gets expanded to cover a whole lot more than pollution. They might lay the pavement down for further expansion of such laws in a manner that eventually criminalizes the exercise of any kind of journalism that exposes ANY kind of criminal wrongdoing, not just by a polluter but by any corporate OR government official.

I daresay there is a MUCH bigger chance of that happening than Heller getting overturned.
That's because ordinary investigative journalism has NEVER EVER been criminalized in the entire history of this great nation before, and now it has been at the state level. We are now in uncharted territory.

Restrictive gun laws have been passed, and knocked down before. Gun rights have even been expanded before, and regulations on use and sales have been eased before. So the pendulum has swung both ways before.

In areas concerning the First Amendment, history shows that the pendulum seldom if ever goes back in the direction of freedom. Once citizens and journalists are muzzled, it's an iron mask that they wear forever.

Right now there's talk of even easing Australia's restrictive gun laws, and that's Australia.
But Australia currently has more press freedom than we do, isn't that interesting?

The reason gun laws have been eased before is because enough people, even under a liberal administration, knew enough and cared enough.

When it comes to freedom of the press, once it gets taken away, people don't even know enough, so how can they care at all?
See what I meant about how it works both ways, mang?
Eess all about priorities, mang. ;)
 
What is or isn't considered "reasoned"? To Dianne Feinstein "reasoned" is to ban all guns: "Mr. and Misses America, turn em all in!" is what she stated outright. You and I might not consider that "reasoned" but to her it is.

And again I say, Ms. Feinstein has not done the arithmetic, but should such an insane idea ever reach the floor, some Congress critters WILL do the arithmetic, and her trillion dollar idea would die a quick and painless death.
Chrissakes, even Bernie Sanders is friendly to all the Elmer Fudd types up in Vermont.

hqdefault.jpg

And that's part of it, by the way. Earlier I referenced how guns and the NRA used to be viewed by society when I was growing up, and that was a large part of how gun culture was perceived. You need to consider the role played by cultural education when it comes to any issue, be it sex education and contraception, guns, marijuana's role in the drug war...literally anything and everything is subject to society's perception of that thing. Motorcycles, rock music and long hair used to be perceived as a threat to society. When I was growing up a person could be ejected from a public establishment for having long hair, now motorcycle clubs are part of the fabric of Americana and even square white people think they can be rappers.

My point is, all this hand wringing about an old biddy like Ms. Feinstein is counterproductive because her ideas can be ridiculed and marginalized, and they have been for some time.
It's THE MIDDLE. The center cannot hold if you spend an inordinate amount of time freaking out on the edges.
The center, the moral and cultural center of society is where attitudes change.
Right now the moral and cultural center of society isn't interested in banning all guns.
They would be okay with the homeowners owning firearms for protection, the shopkeepers keeping one under the counter, Elmer Fudd hunting wabbits in the woods, and so on.

Whatever progress Ms. Feinstein may have made is because she appealed to the moral and cultural center of society.
Wayne LaPierre is speaking to the fringes. Even some NRA members think he's batsh!t crazy, and more and more of them are letting their membership expire. I know I did.

So I say that society did not think Feinstein's ideas were "reasoned" at all.
 
And again I say, Ms. Feinstein has not done the arithmetic, but should such an insane idea ever reach the floor, some Congress critters WILL do the arithmetic, and her trillion dollar idea would die a quick and painless death.
Chrissakes, even Bernie Sanders is friendly to all the Elmer Fudd types up in Vermont.

View attachment 67201838

And that's part of it, by the way. Earlier I referenced how guns and the NRA used to be viewed by society when I was growing up, and that was a large part of how gun culture was perceived. You need to consider the role played by cultural education when it comes to any issue, be it sex education and contraception, guns, marijuana's role in the drug war...literally anything and everything is subject to society's perception of that thing. Motorcycles, rock music and long hair used to be perceived as a threat to society. When I was growing up a person could be ejected from a public establishment for having long hair, now motorcycle clubs are part of the fabric of Americana and even square white people think they can be rappers.

My point is, all this hand wringing about an old biddy like Ms. Feinstein is counterproductive because her ideas can be ridiculed and marginalized, and they have been for some time.
It's THE MIDDLE. The center cannot hold if you spend an inordinate amount of time freaking out on the edges.
The center, the moral and cultural center of society is where attitudes change.
Right now the moral and cultural center of society isn't interested in banning all guns.
They would be okay with the homeowners owning firearms for protection, the shopkeepers keeping one under the counter, Elmer Fudd hunting wabbits in the woods, and so on.

Whatever progress Ms. Feinstein may have made is because she appealed to the moral and cultural center of society.
Wayne LaPierre is speaking to the fringes. Even some NRA members think he's batsh!t crazy, and more and more of them are letting their membership expire. I know I did.

So I say that society did not think Feinstein's ideas were "reasoned" at all.

Bold part: You are correct there. What kind of message do you think is spread when students get into trouble simply for raising their thumb, pointing the pointer finger and going "pew pew pew!"? Or when a student gets suspended for a day due to a bubble gun that doesn't even look like a real gun? What's the message say to students about guns?

As for the rest, its not just Feinstein. There are plenty of other politicians out there that think along the same lines but won't state it outright like she did because they know that its political suicide for them to do so. Every time that Democrats tried to make an issue about gun control during an election season they inevitably lost. Feinstein doesn't have to worry about it near as much as other politicians because she's in California and most of them are anti-gun. Not all, but certainly most, which is all she needs.

As for the middle, the middle has been tried before. Gun-control advocates just keep asking for more. Why should anymore be given? Especially when its been proven that the gun-control laws that we currently have and have had before has done nothing to reduce crime? Why can we not start focusing on things that will actually reduce crime? I'm seriously starting to think that this whole gun-control issue is nothing more than an issue that's used by the elite in order to divert public attention away from more important issues. Like the very things that could be done to actually reduce crime and yet has nothing to do with guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom