• 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!

The Clinton Gun control agenda

MickeyW said:
There is only one overall Truth....Hillary is a Crook. Sorry I can't provide you with FBI confirmation, but they whitewashed it.
Click to expand...

You are making claims and not backing them up. I am forced to conclude you are being dishonest in this debate.

Btw, you could post a section of copyrighted material under fair use as long as we are judging it. Copyrighted doesn't mean you can't use it as information. Unless you mean it's classified in which case they wouldn't have given you access in the first place.

So I think you're just lying. And you don't care about honesty or the truth. It's very sad I must say. But I still wish you the best.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You are making claims and not backing them up. I am forced to conclude you are being dishonest in this debate.

Btw, you could post a section of copyrighted material under fair use as long as we are judging it. Copyrighted doesn't mean you can't use it as information. Unless you mean it's classified in which case they wouldn't have given you access in the first place.

So I think you're just lying. And you don't care about honesty or the truth. It's very sad I must say. But I still wish you the best.
Click to expand...

Lets see if you agree with Hillary's public stances on various gun issues

1) reinstatement of her husband's gun ban including a ban on anything more than a ten round magazine being made for private citizens' consumption

2) allowing people to sue gun makers even if the gun maker sold a firearm complying with all laws if the firearm is later used to hurt the plaintiff

3) a ban on gun shows

4) requiring private citizens to conduct background checks or pay gun dealers to conduct background checks if they wish to sell. lend or gift firearms to others

5) allowing cities or states to pass gun bans such as those in Chicago and DC

6) overturning the Supreme court holding that the second amendment protects the right of individual citizens to own common firearms in their own homes even if they have nothing to do with an organized militia
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see if you agree with Hillary's public stances on various gun issues

1) reinstatement of her husband's gun ban including a ban on anything more than a ten round magazine being made for private citizens' consumption

2) allowing people to sue gun makers even if the gun maker sold a firearm complying with all laws if the firearm is later used to hurt the plaintiff

3) a ban on gun shows

4) requiring private citizens to conduct background checks or pay gun dealers to conduct background checks if they wish to sell. lend or gift firearms to others

5) allowing cities or states to pass gun bans such as those in Chicago and DC

6) overturning the Supreme court holding that the second amendment protects the right of individual citizens to own common firearms in their own homes even if they have nothing to do with an organized militia
Click to expand...

Maybe you could ask politely and I might entertain an answer. But as of right now I've made no claims on what her views on gun control are and if they match mine.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Maybe you could ask politely and I might entertain an answer. But as of right now I've made no claims on what her views on gun control are and if they match mine.
Click to expand...

Lets see if you agree? that seems pretty polite to me
 
TurtleDude said:
Lets see if you agree? that seems pretty polite to me
Click to expand...

I just meant that you had never even asked. You just said let's see.

I'm not certain I even want to waste my time. Your side has a tendency to claim people are lying when they state their beliefs on gun control. I've also never seen Hillary advocate a few of those positions. She wants to ban gunshots all together?
 
roughdraft274 said:
I just meant that you had never even asked. You just said let's see.

I'm not certain I even want to waste my time. Your side has a tendency to claim people are lying when they state their beliefs on gun control. I've also never seen Hillary advocate a few of those positions. She wants to ban gunshots all together?
Click to expand...

say what. I tend to state people are lying when they lie
 
jet57 said:
I'm really not trying to go any particular place; I'm asking you about the court vs the 2nd amendment.

So, since a federal assault weapons ban has already passed constitutional muster: (government decide what a gun is), how is a liberal court going to change that? How are your rights infringed by not being able to buy a fully automatic M16, 1000 rounds of ammo and 20 banana clips?
Click to expand...

How can empowering the government to limit access to firearms and ammunition using arbitrary limitations whose creation also create precedence for further limitation not be a restriction on my rights? If it's Constitutional to say no semi-automatic rifles or 30 round magazines, and limit the amount of ammo anyone can own to 1000 rounds, it would also be perfectly Constitutional to limit any firearm for any reason, and limit magazine capacity to 2 rounds, and the amount of ammo anyone could own to 5 rounds.
 
Rucker61 said:
How can empowering the government to limit access to firearms and ammunition using arbitrary limitations whose creation also create precedence for further limitation not be a restriction on my rights? If it's Constitutional to say no semi-automatic rifles or 30 round magazines, and limit the amount of ammo anyone can own to 1000 rounds, it would also be perfectly Constitutional to limit any firearm for any reason, and limit magazine capacity to 2 rounds, and the amount of ammo anyone could own to 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

To suit gun controls agenda it is obvious that promoting an ideology whereby governments supreme court is superior to the constitution is an ideal that can persuade people of the legitimacy of gun control.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I know what working with means. It doesn't mean that you can pick an arbitrary pet subject of yours and say she doesn't work with others because she doesn't agree with you in one subject.
Click to expand...

You seem to babble a lot attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. It's annoying but very common with the morally bankrupt. Politics is always about power as that is the only currency. Working with is horse trading and not anything useful to citizens. So you know nothing about politics.

And you must have no idea what a straw man is if you think you are accurately describing it. And even still the description you are giving doesn't describe my response. Somehow you managed to be wrong twice over.
Click to expand...

Imagine how easy it would have been if you had taken my description and shown why it was not a strawman argument. The very best you could do was an unevidence denial and you favourite an ad hominem attack.

Well done you managed to post a completely useless post as a glaring example of your inabilities to communicate in a sensible way.

See two can play and I'm willing to bet I'm better at that you will ever be.

I'm willing to challenge you that you cannot reword you answer to be a sensible post.
 
jet57 said:
Nope. You're trying to put words in my mouth again. Moreover, you're diverting from the question.

How is a liberal appointment to the supreme court going to be bad for the 2nd amendment?

Since gun control laws have been found to be constitutional, I don't understand why a liberal appointment is going to change anything?

ps: "liberal/socialist government" is just ignorant, so I'm not entertaining that notion.
Click to expand...

There is no purpose in further exchange when you're avoiding the obvious.

I've explained how, and you've dodged the underlying point you're telegraphing.

I'll give it one last shot, and if the response is the same, I'll move on.

What type of guns should citizens be allowed to own?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Once again you haven't given me even a shred of evidence to back up such wild claims.
Click to expand...

What sort of evidence would satisfy you? A signed confession? I sincerely hope you are not foolish enough to want more than her visible intent by the direction she has chosen. That would be like saying Adolph Hitler never said "I'm going to kill all those Jews and other rabble I don't like". His intent was certainly visible, not that many could see it, not even the Jews. They were waiting for a sign and asking for proof..

And her "working across the isle" was not very limited. She was complimented on it fairly often. Over her two terms she was in the senate with 65 different republican senators and 57 of them cosponsored at least one bill with her.
Click to expand...

She is ideologically blind to facts. The Brady bill was a complete failure and here she is promoting the same crap again and deliberately lying it is going to work this time. She knows damn well it cannot

You seem to be wanting to deny reality so that your narrative remains intact. This isn't a good way to determine the truth.
Click to expand...

Hilltart would not know the truth even it if bit her in the behind.
 
TurtleDude said:
say what. I tend to state people are lying when they lie
Click to expand...

My phone autocorrected gunshows to gunshots.

And you tend to call out people for lying not when they are lying, but rather when they don't fit your stereotype.
 
ocean515 said:
There is no purpose in further exchange when you're avoiding the obvious.

I've explained how, and you've dodged the underlying point you're telegraphing.

I'll give it one last shot, and if the response is the same, I'll move on.

What type of guns should citizens be allowed to own?
Click to expand...

You can't answer the question.

:2wave:
 
Rucker61 said:
How can empowering the government to limit access to firearms and ammunition using arbitrary limitations whose creation also create precedence for further limitation not be a restriction on my rights? If it's Constitutional to say no semi-automatic rifles or 30 round magazines, and limit the amount of ammo anyone can own to 1000 rounds, it would also be perfectly Constitutional to limit any firearm for any reason, and limit magazine capacity to 2 rounds, and the amount of ammo anyone could own to 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

Nope. A case would have to have standing to do that, just like their is standing to ban full auto M16s and there was standing to ban assault rifles. There maybe a liberal appointed to the court but that does not mean that the person is stupid. There has been plenty of gun control in the country since our beginning and the 2nd amendment still stands - as is. So again, I can't see how a Supreme Court court - loaded up with liberals is going to change anything. You guys in the gun crowd are just "what-iffing".
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess one of us will be wrong

but I do agree with you on one thing. I don't trust Trump on guns but he might be OK

The lying bitch is guaranteed to be awful
Click to expand...



you should be used to being wrong by now
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

You completely shifted the subject and then dove out.
Click to expand...

Typical response.

I answered your questions. You don't like my answers, I don't care.

Yet, you refused to answer mine.

Worthless to continue, yet you say I dove out?

Lame.

Have a nice day.
 
Crimefree said:
What of it? The drug war is as futile at the war on alcohol or guns. None of them have any hope of success.

Any party that embraces flights of fancy and utter stupidity does not deserve one single vote. Demonstrating an inability to think should be exclusionary
Click to expand...

Why is there no advance on the right wing, in that regard; not practicable enough.
 
ocean515 said:
Typical response.

I answered your questions. You don't like my answers, I don't care.

Yet, you refused to answer mine.

Worthless to continue, yet you say I dove out?

Lame.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

Dude; I asked you how a liberal on the Supreme Court was going to effect the 2nd amendment, and you haven't answered that. You just changed the subject.
 
roughdraft274 said:
My phone autocorrected gunshows to gunshots.

And you tend to call out people for lying not when they are lying, but rather when they don't fit your stereotype.
Click to expand...

any "stereotype" I may have has come from 40+ years of listening to the same tired and dishonest leftwing nonsense about guns. and since most of the gun banners don't understand guns, they often lie about guns
 
Rucker61 said:
How can empowering the government to limit access to firearms and ammunition using arbitrary limitations whose creation also create precedence for further limitation not be a restriction on my rights? If it's Constitutional to say no semi-automatic rifles or 30 round magazines, and limit the amount of ammo anyone can own to 1000 rounds, it would also be perfectly Constitutional to limit any firearm for any reason, and limit magazine capacity to 2 rounds, and the amount of ammo anyone could own to 5 rounds.
Click to expand...

you have hit on what the Democrat party's goals are. They know that the second amendment was intended to be a blanket restriction on government interference but they want to make that restriction subject to whatever encroachments they can pass through congress or state legislatures. In other words, they don't believe there is any constitutional right but rather, gun ownership is subject to the whims of whatever the legislature and governor/president can pass.
 
ocean515 said:
There is no purpose in further exchange when you're avoiding the obvious.

I've explained how, and you've dodged the underlying point you're telegraphing.

I'll give it one last shot, and if the response is the same, I'll move on.

What type of guns should citizens be allowed to own?
Click to expand...

HIs posts prove he doesn't believe that you have any RIGHT to own ANY firearm. Rather you may merely own the type of firearms that the CURRENT legislature and executive says you can. If they change their mind and ban sale of those firearms down the road, that is fine with him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom