• 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!

Trump on Clinton and the 2nd amendment

See now you're using a pathetic strawman argument that I've already addressed.

he doesn't need to "repeal the second amendment" their side of the argument claims the second amendment doesn't even protect an individual right and hence they're not violating it.

I don't care if he doesn't "repeal" the second amendment from the constitution, those far leftist types will pass every law they want anyway and stack courts with judges who will uphold it. can you name one gun rights vote of Kagan or Sotomayor?

They have already twisted the constitution to grant the Fed gun regulation powers through the commerse clause where the constitution is quite clear, gun regulation is NOT an enumerated power.
 
See now you're using a pathetic strawman argument that I've already addressed.[/quote[

No, I've offered no strawman. This was your original statement: "You don't think Obama would abolish the second amendment (or at least sign laws to regulate guns so heavily it leads to a de facto repeal) if he could get the congressional votes for it?" and that's what I've been addressing. I suggest refraining from trying to use terminology that you aren't familiar with.
he doesn't need to "repeal the second amendment" their side of the argument claims the second amendment doesn't even protect an individual right and hence they're not violating it.

He has not made that argument, nor has he acted in a fashion that would indicate that is his belief. Again: your words are above, for reference, in case you've forgotten them. Or are you now changing your argument?
I don't care if he doesn't "repeal" the second amendment from the constitution, those far leftist types will pass every law they want anyway and stack courts with judges who will uphold it. can you name one gun rights vote of Kagan or Sotomayor?

This isn't about 'those far leftist types', it's about Obama. Have you so little faith in your original statement that you now feel forced to amend it?

Kagan and Sotomayor are irrelevant to the actions of Obama in this regard.
 
See now you're using a pathetic strawman argument that I've already addressed.[/quote[

No, I've offered no strawman. This was your original statement: "You don't think Obama would abolish the second amendment (or at least sign laws to regulate guns so heavily it leads to a de facto repeal) if he could get the congressional votes for it?" and that's what I've been addressing. I suggest refraining from trying to use terminology that you aren't familiar with.

He has not made that argument, nor has he acted in a fashion that would indicate that is his belief. Again: your words are above, for reference, in case you've forgotten them. Or are you now changing your argument?

This isn't about 'those far leftist types', it's about Obama. Have you so little faith in your original statement that you now feel forced to amend it?

Kagan and Sotomayor are irrelevant to the actions of Obama in this regard.

how do you interpret the second amendment and what does it mean to you?
 
Trump is a lying SOS, and like all conspiracy theorists, he uses the same BS vague language.

But the rabble are just too ignorant to see how they are being played. They always are...that is why there are con artists.
That's rich coming from a Hillary supporter. :lamo
 
how do you interpret the second amendment and what does it mean to you?

Wow.

Well THERE'S a gigantic, Grand Canyon sized question.

It's not really the venue for the answer that question demands, but I grew up with guns, love their utility, and have one on my person 5, sometimes 7, days a week.

If you're looking for specific judicial opinions and my interpretation of them, I don't have many.

But I like the way Posner addressed it.
 
Wow.

Well THERE'S a gigantic, Grand Canyon sized question.

It's not really the venue for the answer that question demands, but I grew up with guns, love their utility, and have one on my person 5, sometimes 7, days a week.

If you're looking for specific judicial opinions and my interpretation of them, I don't have many.

But I like the way Posner addressed it.

the opinion of his that was reversed in McDonald?
 
1. You do realize that the repeal of a Constitutional amendment requires another Constitutional amendment, which takes more than "Congressional votes" to pass, don't you?
2. I try not to argue in hypotheticals.

She doesn't want to go through the bother of repealing it.

She simply wants Heller reversed, so that it becomes meaningless and effectively protects nothing.

She's said this quite a few times.
 
1. You do realize that the repeal of a Constitutional amendment requires another Constitutional amendment, which takes more than "Congressional votes" to pass, don't you?
2. I try not to argue in hypotheticals.

You can effectively make an amendment worthless by just a court ruling or two. I see no reason to repeal an amendment when all you need is a court that sides with you on what an amendment means.
 
Both Hillary and Obama have a list of guns they want banned and a list of people they don't want to have guns.
 
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said to the crowd of supporters gathered in the Trask Coliseum at North Carolina University in Wilmington. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Trump Says Maybe '2nd Amendment People' Can Stop Clinton's Supreme Court Picks - ABC News

He keeps qualifying these innuendos with, "I don't know." and "You tell me."
Time for the Trumpster Legion to explain what he really meant.

Yeah, this is absurd. You shouldn't need to tell a major presidential candidate that it's not okay to insinuate --and not really insinuate, more directly request-- that they should shoot his political rival. There's a term for that, it's called being a totalitarian dictator. Normally this is hyperbole, but with Trump, it sadly isn't. This guy is absolutely crazy, and there's no bounds of reason with him.
 

I have read that before and I note that Posner's reputation is a guy who is bright but not consistent and who seems pissed off he never was on the supreme court, but people he thinks are not as smart as he is, are. The people who pretend that the second amendment does not recognize an individual right never are able to tell us why the commerce clause was a valid vehicle to create power that even they have to admit the founders never intended. And I sort of dismiss the article when it has this in it

The preamble implies that the Second Amendment (which creates a right “to keep and bear arms”
 
Yeah, this is absurd. You shouldn't need to tell a major presidential candidate that it's not okay to insinuate --and not really insinuate, more directly request-- that they should shoot his political rival. There's a term for that, it's called being a totalitarian dictator. Normally this is hyperbole, but with Trump, it sadly isn't. This guy is absolutely crazy, and there's no bounds of reason with him.

It would seem that a large degree of idiocy is required to get from "maybe there is something" (they can do) to shooting. How did you do it? Care to explain? Are second amendment people known for shooting anything including politicians?

This looks like propaganda to me by mangling the truth and extending it way out into the realm of pure hyperbole.
 
Back
Top Bottom