• 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!

Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment

TurtleDude said:
Every gun banner I have heard on this issue is supporting Hillary. They want her to appoint more gun banners to the court. That is what is going on.
Click to expand...

Once again I know that. What difference does it make if I vote for her or Hillary, I live in Texas, the GOP will get that set of electoral votes no matter how I vote. My no vote is the only form of protest I have with the sad state of Presidential candidates, the American people Should be outraged but yet they remain clueless. The reality is the Dem candidate has an advantage in electoral votes from the beginning meaning the GOP candidates has to win a large portion of the swing state votes, simple math tells me he is not going to do that. Prepare for what is coming.
 
TurtleDude said:
Look-I know its tough to pretend to support a constitutional right that was INTENDED and WRITTEN to prevent ANY federal interference into our right to be armed, when you also are a big fan boy of Leftwing politicians. You have made it perfectly clear that gun rights really don't mean all that much to you because you put the creeping crud of collectivism ahead of the rights of free citizens to be armed at least as well as CIVILIAN cops. the federal government NEVER was intended to have ANY power to limit what private citizens could own in terms of small arms in their own homes or within their sovereign states but people like you do your best to interfere with that right
Click to expand...

I know it's tough to pretend there can be no limits on the rights you rant on about, but reality is rather finite. NO RIGHT is limitless and beyond the touch of reasoned regulation. I realize some want to pretend we are still that fledgling nation fearful of kings in a world where representative democracy was a 'grand experiment'- where muzzle loading smooth bores were THE military long arm of the day and not today's 2 centuries old Republic and mass killing no longer requires the entire town's militia to mobilize and stand shoulder to shoulder within 50 yards of the victims...

'Collectivism' has been a foundation of this nation from the earliest days as New England towns had 'commons', we all gathered to raise a barn, and defense was a group of men practicing on the commons in drills and not singularly. WWI and WWII were both won by collectivism, we put a man on the moon with collectivism, I know some have the - "I got mine- to hell with the rest of you" but as a nation we are a collective.

Now we can be 'free citizens' and not armed as well as the cops... who FYI have a sworn duty to move TOWARD danger and thus a higher level of danger, a condition you seem hell bent on ignoring... :roll:

I'd say you are over reaching to say there can be no limits on what a citizen can be armed with, there can be no prohibition of self defense- big difference...

I have no issue with you defending your mansion, but having carried the M16a1 with both 20 and 30 round mags I see no advantage to the 30's in semi only rifles. And as always the rich have opted out of the prohibition on select fire by of course using their money to influence politicians and pay fees.

You should have been a politician- your arguments work in the court of the rabid right public opinion- but seem to be flaccid in a court of law... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
I know it's tough to pretend there can be no limits on the rights you rant on about, but reality is rather finite. NO RIGHT is limitless and beyond the touch of reasoned regulation. I realize some want to pretend we are still that fledgling nation fearful of kings in a world where representative democracy was a 'grand experiment'- where muzzle loading smooth bores were THE military long arm of the day and not today's 2 centuries old Republic and mass killing no longer requires the entire town's militia to mobilize and stand shoulder to shoulder within 50 yards of the victims...

'Collectivism' has been a foundation of this nation from the earliest days as New England towns had 'commons', we all gathered to raise a barn, and defense was a group of men practicing on the commons in drills and not singularly. WWI and WWII were both won by collectivism, we put a man on the moon with collectivism, I know some have the - "I got mine- to hell with the rest of you" but as a nation we are a collective.

Now we can be 'free citizens' and not armed as well as the cops... who FYI have a sworn duty to move TOWARD danger and thus a higher level of danger, a condition you seem hell bent on ignoring... :roll:

I'd say you are over reaching to say there can be no limits on what a citizen can be armed with, there can be no prohibition of self defense- big difference...

I have no issue with you defending your mansion, but having carried the M16a1 with both 20 and 30 round mags I see no advantage to the 30's in semi only rifles. And as always the rich have opted out of the prohibition on select fire by of course using their money to influence politicians and pay fees.

You should have been a politician- your arguments work in the court of the rabid right public opinion- but seem to be flaccid in a court of law... :peace
Click to expand...

where did the federal government PROPERLY get any power to interfere with the second amendment

I need a good laugh-what exactly did the second amendment really say (even if the COMMERCE CLAUSE was intended to allow gun control)

I couldn't care less if you don't see any advantage to a 30 round mag over a 20 round mag. Others who know as much (or more in my case and that of many others) as you do think individuals ought to be able to own what they want
 
TurtleDude said:
where did the federal government PROPERLY get any power to interfere with the second amendment. I need a good laugh-what exactly did the second amendment really say (even if the COMMERCE CLAUSE was intended to allow gun control) I couldn't care less if you don't see any advantage to a 30 round mag over a 20 round mag. Others who know as much (or more in my case and that of many others) as you do think individuals ought to be able to own what they want
Click to expand...

Ahhh the 2nd year law school late night rant... except of course the courts have already ruled on all your fussing... ;)

The Constitution isn't a holy Relic, to be worshiped. Our founders believed in PROGRESS and most were still quite active when the Highest Court took on the job of keeping a 200 year old document relevant in an age where one man can kill what an entire militia company couldn't. Not perfect but better than a few rabid 'gun rubbers' claiming only 'their' amendment is above regulation...

While tooting your own horn is your stock and trade I'll have to take your 'expertise' with a grain of salt- killing paper isn't quite the same thing, but do revel in your own opinion. You should ask Mickey W his opinion on large cap mags- he is of the opinion the 1911 can fire many rounds in a minute so it is little different than today's high cap weapons... ;)

I have no doubt some with a generational sense of privilege think they should have whatever they wish. The law and courts says otherwise.

Gotta beef with that- petition the court- you do know how to do that don'tcha??? :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Ahhh the 2nd year law school late night rant... except of course the courts have already ruled on all your fussing... ;)

The Constitution isn't a holy Relic, to be worshiped. Our founders believed in PROGRESS and most were still quite active when the Highest Court took on the job of keeping a 200 year old document relevant in an age where one man can kill what an entire militia company couldn't. Not perfect but better than a few rabid 'gun rubbers' claiming only 'their' amendment is above regulation...

While tooting your own horn is your stock and trade I'll have to take your 'expertise' with a grain of salt- killing paper isn't quite the same thing, but do revel in your own opinion. You should ask Mickey W his opinion on large cap mags- he is of the opinion the 1911 can fire many rounds in a minute so it is little different than today's high cap weapons... ;)

I have no doubt some with a generational sense of privilege think they should have whatever they wish. The law and courts says otherwise.

Gotta beef with that- petition the court- you do know how to do that don'tcha??? :peace
Click to expand...

tell us why progress in your mind means more government control and less freedom
 
TurtleDude said:
tell us why progress in your mind means more government control and less freedom
Click to expand...

ahhh now you want to move the strike zone now that you can't debate the facts... fact is the CONSTITUTION is being followed and if any brilliant legal minds think otherwise they should quit posing online and start going to court... :2wave:

Faux freedoms are just rabid right talking points- I can kill anyone I think needs killing with less than 30 rounds. More government control- like regulations on food, drugs, water, worker safety, and yes firearms is not giving up freedom... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
ahhh now you want to move the strike zone now that you can't debate the facts... fact is the CONSTITUTION is being followed and if any brilliant legal minds think otherwise they should quit posing online and start going to court... :2wave:

Faux freedoms are just rabid right talking points- I can kill anyone I think needs killing with less than 30 rounds. More government control- like regulations on food, drugs, water, worker safety, and yes firearms is not giving up freedom... :peace
Click to expand...

I really couldn't care about your claims about what you can do. lots of police departments issue 30 round magazines. If that is proper for civilian police, I really don't care what you think is necessary for everyone else based on your own bragging about your skills.

and your crap that regulations on food and drugs etc is very different than restraining one group of people (non government citizens) over another group (those who work for the government). The stuff you cite does not give the government specially unique privileges.

so you are being dishonest in your argument
 
TurtleDude said:
I think that is really silly given that Hillary is clearly the worst choice on gun rights
Click to expand...

but there are many other issues at stake other than gun rights.

For me.. its things like the economy, foreign affairs, other constitutional rights etc... where Trump is potentially dangerous.

and quite frankly.. I believe that he is more dangerous on firearms. If it was in his interest to support a gun ban.. I believe he would do it.

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Click to expand...

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Click to expand...

If Hillary, like Obama before her, tries to be hard left anti gun.. the political fall out will hurt bad.

but Trump can go along with gun control and not have as much political fallout. Who can you vote for instead?

If Trump needs a bone to throw to the Democrats to help get something passed he really wants... I think more gun restrictions could be that bone.
 
jaeger19 said:
but there are many other issues at stake other than gun rights.

For me.. its things like the economy, foreign affairs, other constitutional rights etc... where Trump is potentially dangerous.

and quite frankly.. I believe that he is more dangerous on firearms. If it was in his interest to support a gun ban.. I believe he would do it.





If Hillary, like Obama before her, tries to be hard left anti gun.. the political fall out will hurt bad.

but Trump can go along with gun control and not have as much political fallout. Who can you vote for instead?

If Trump needs a bone to throw to the Democrats to help get something passed he really wants... I think more gun restrictions could be that bone.
Click to expand...

so you are a "conservative" and you are supporting Hillary? she has made it quite clear that she wants to ban guns

and the easiest way to ban guns is to have a court full of gun banners like Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Quotamayor

like it or not, Trump won't get support to put a militant anti gunner on the court. but if hillary has the senate that's what we are going to get
 
notquiteright said:
ahhh now you want to move the strike zone now that you can't debate the facts... fact is the CONSTITUTION is being followed and if any brilliant legal minds think otherwise they should quit posing online and start going to court... :2wave:

Faux freedoms are just rabid right talking points- I can kill anyone I think needs killing with less than 30 rounds. More government control- like regulations on food, drugs, water, worker safety, and yes firearms is not giving up freedom... :peace
Click to expand...

So if the government regulated that red meat was dangerous for you and banned its sale... that would not be giving up freedom?

If the government regulated that smoking and drinking was unsafe and banned all smoking and drinking.. would that not be giving up freedom?
 
jaeger19 said:
So if the government regulated that red meat was dangerous for you and banned its sale... that would not be giving up freedom?

If the government regulated that smoking and drinking was unsafe and banned all smoking and drinking.. would that not be giving up freedom?
Click to expand...



its a real nightmare trying to pretend you aren't a gun banner while supporting the creeping crud of collectivism. "Progressive" thought is anything but that-rather its the inevitable slide to an oppressive nanny state where the citizens are treated as if they are incompetent children and the "elites" are all-wise, all powerful super-parents running the lives of everyone else.
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm yes ALL Constitutional Rights are subject to regulation... can you yell fire in a crowded building?
Click to expand...

Yes. You can, cite one criminal statute that states you cannot yell "fire"
Ever heard of slander?
Click to expand...
slander is a civil action, you cannot be imprisoned for it, however your idea of gun regulation is probably criminal laws.
How about putting the 10 commandments of state property?
Click to expand...
different issue altogether, that does not infringe on one's right to believe in the ten commandments
The Press is subject to many regulations.
Click to expand...
all civil and none criminal
trail by jury as well... (many courts don't allow trail by jury in misdemeanor cases)
Click to expand...
Actually nearly every state requires a right to jury trial for all criminal actions, felony or misdemeanor.

Now i'll wager a shiny nickel all the 'gun' rubbers who bark at this dog whistle were not going to vote for Clinton way before this...
Click to expand...
probably correct

[/quote]but if you think Trump gives a rat's rump about 'the little guy's' right to carry firearms... :peace[/QUOTE]

he is also not idelogically invested in gun control like clinton.
 
notquiteright said:
Faux freedoms are just rabid right talking points- I can kill anyone I think needs killing with less than 30 rounds. More government control- like regulations on food, drugs, water, worker safety, and yes firearms is not giving up freedom... :peace
Click to expand...

You deserve time in the dunce corner for that comment. Regulations are by their very nature a limitation on freedom.
 
as someone else noted, there are few issues that the Lying Bitch has been consistent about over the 24 years that we, the public, have known her. One of those has been a burning hatred of citizens being armed. The Lying Bitch was a key proponent and cheerleader for her husband's gun ban. Members of the administration that she chose (like Janet Reno) were consistently and vigorously anti gun.

she has never ever dialed back her seething hatred of the NRA and us voters who see our second amendment rights as important. Her daughter is braying that the Lying Bitch will appoint justices who will rape the second amendment rights of the citizens.

this is one area where I actually believe the lying Bitch. I really do believe she wants to impose a British style gun confiscation program here in the states
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are a "conservative" and you are supporting Hillary? she has made it quite clear that she wants to ban guns

and the easiest way to ban guns is to have a court full of gun banners like Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Quotamayor

like it or not, Trump won't get support to put a militant anti gunner on the court. but if hillary has the senate that's what we are going to get
Click to expand...


I am a conservative that has no good conservative choices. NONE.

So I have a choice. Vote libertarian as a protest vote.. as I have voted before and hope the crap doesn't hit the fan.

Or vote for the less scary of the two. And right now.. Trump is very very scary.

I don't have the luxury of being a one issue voter.
 
TurtleDude said:
its a real nightmare trying to pretend you aren't a gun banner while supporting the creeping crud of collectivism. "Progressive" thought is anything but that-rather its the inevitable slide to an oppressive nanny state where the citizens are treated as if they are incompetent children and the "elites" are all-wise, all powerful super-parents running the lives of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well as you have pointed out in other threads.. its not just those labeled as progressive. Many of todays so called conservatives (so called, but anything but) would love to run the lives of everyone else from what you can read, what religion you can practice.. to what medical procedures your wife can have.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are a "conservative" and you are supporting Hillary? she has made it quite clear that she wants to ban guns

and the easiest way to ban guns is to have a court full of gun banners like Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Quotamayor

like it or not, Trump won't get support to put a militant anti gunner on the court. but if hillary has the senate that's what we are going to get
Click to expand...

Like it our not, Trump isn't smart enough to know WHO he is putting on the court. Gun banner or not.

Do you really think Trump has the acumen to personally choose a member of the supreme court? Come now.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am a conservative that has no good conservative choices. NONE.

So I have a choice. Vote libertarian as a protest vote.. as I have voted before and hope the crap doesn't hit the fan.

Or vote for the less scary of the two. And right now.. Trump is very very scary.

I don't have the luxury of being a one issue voter.
Click to expand...

The only issues I even remotely agree with the Lying Bitch on are abortion and gay rights. Two court created rights that are not important to me personally. I wish the GOP would become Agnostic on social issues-my life is not impacted whatsoever if someone else wants to have an abortion, marry someone of their same sex or engage in anal intercourse with another man or oral intercourse with another woman. It has absolutely no interference with my rights, my wealth, my freedom or anything else. However, the Lying Bitch is as anti gun as one can get and has a track record of being a gun banner. She also is a tax hiker who believes in buying the votes of the envious with the wealth of the productive.

and most importantly, she wants to pick judges who don't believe that the constitution is a limit on governmental action
 
jaeger19 said:
Like it our not, Trump isn't smart enough to know WHO he is putting on the court. Gun banner or not.

Do you really think Trump has the acumen to personally choose a member of the supreme court? Come now.
Click to expand...

Trump is at least as smart as hillary

hillary isn't all that bright. She didn't even graduate Cum Laude at Wellseley. She was an affirmative action recipient into Yale Law school. She wasn't on the law journal. She didn't get a prestigious clerkship. She FAILED the DC bar. any success she has had in life was directly based on her being married to a popular politician. her success at the Rose Law firm was based on the fact that most of her practice involved representing clients who were appearing before regulatory boards whose members were appointed by her husband. She was able to win the senate seat as a carpetbagger in NY due to the fact that NY was one of the major bastions of Bill Clinton fan boys and girls. She was a disaster as SOS.
 
TurtleDude said:
The only issues I even remotely agree with the Lying Bitch on are abortion and gay rights. Two court created rights that are not important to me personally. I wish the GOP would become Agnostic on social issues-my life is not impacted whatsoever if someone else wants to have an abortion, marry someone of their same sex or engage in anal intercourse with another man or oral intercourse with another woman. It has absolutely no interference with my rights, my wealth, my freedom or anything else. However, the Lying Bitch is as anti gun as one can get and has a track record of being a gun banner. She also is a tax hiker who believes in buying the votes of the envious with the wealth of the productive.

and most importantly, she wants to pick judges who don't believe that the constitution is a limit on governmental action
Click to expand...

Agree vehemently on the social issues. If the GOP understood what real conservative means.. small but efficient government... and kept to that.. its an easy winner. The only problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that they are naïve when it comes to the free market.. (they think business will regulate itself when we have years of environmental cleanup to deal with their mess) and they are naïve on foreign affairs (isolationism has proven to be a bad idea.).

Hillary has a track record on guns. But she is a realist very much like Obama.. and if its not politically in her interest to go after firearms.. then she will not do it because of the fall out.

She would appoint an anti gun justice.. however, I have a hard time seeing why that would really end up being bad for gun rights. It would mean that the NRA could not take things to the supreme court to reverse a gun control issue like they did in Heller. But the reality is that Heller was a rarity. Rarely has the NRA taken a gun control issue to the supreme court, because its rare that we have had a favorable court.

Trump on the other hand.. will do and say anything that's helps his personal brand. And if throwing guns under the bus is expedient he will not only do it.. he is likely to do it because the political fallout will be negligible.

Trump has no clue on foreign affairs and his arrogance could readily get my sons into another useless war.. or end up with a trade war that cripples our economy.
 
TurtleDude said:
Trump is at least as smart as hillary

hillary isn't all that bright. She didn't even graduate Cum Laude at Wellseley. She was an affirmative action recipient into Yale Law school. She wasn't on the law journal. She didn't get a prestigious clerkship. She FAILED the DC bar. any success she has had in life was directly based on her being married to a popular politician. her success at the Rose Law firm was based on the fact that most of her practice involved representing clients who were appearing before regulatory boards whose members were appointed by her husband. She was able to win the senate seat as a carpetbagger in NY due to the fact that NY was one of the major bastions of Bill Clinton fan boys and girls. She was a disaster as SOS.
Click to expand...

Trump makes Hillary look like a genius. He doesn't even have enough brains to stop running his mouth. He got where he is on Daddy's money and Daddy's connections and on his ability to BS like no ones business.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment | The Hill

Holy crap on a cracker... Please, PLEASE, click the link above and watch the video as well as read the article. The real scary part to me is not that she dodged the question, but that when asked if the right to keep and bear arms was a Constitutional Right, she said "If it is, then..." and then she says that "like all other Constitutional Rights, it is subject to reasonable regulations..."

WTF did she just say???

My Constitutional Rights can be regulated? Free speech can be regulated? The Freedom of the Press can be regulated? The Right to a Trial by Jury can be regulated? The Right to Freedom of Religion can be REGULATED?

Has she lost her mind? Or has some yet unrevealed propensity of hers toward actually being a dictator finally come out?

There's more, like that the Second Amendment was nuanced before what she calls, "Scalia's ruling."

Just watch the video. Why the hell didn't the George Stephanopoulos ask a follow-up question about the press' 1st Amendment Rights being regulated according to her? Is he so far down the rabbit hole with the Clintons that he just ignored that obvious attack on our rights?

EDIT: Got the video off of YouTube, but please, still go and read the article in the link above.



I gotta tell you folks... This may be enough to make me vote for... I can't even say it, but... God, I feel sick.
Click to expand...



Like her fellow Marxist liar in the White House, Mrs. Clinton is proof that most so-called liberals are the very opposite of liberal. She is a statist with a taste for totalitarian rule, and like Obama, she sees the Constitution mostly as an obstacle to her quest for even-more-centralized government. What interests mutts like her and Obama most about the Constitution is how best to evade its restrictions on government.

Read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. That just missed becoming the majority opinion, and it interprets the Second Amendment in a way that reads the individual right to keep and bear arms out of existence. As long as a government restriction of that right does not threaten the existence of a militia, according to Stevens, it will not violate the Second Amendment.
 
jaeger19 said:
Trump makes Hillary look like a genius. He doesn't even have enough brains to stop running his mouth. He got where he is on Daddy's money and Daddy's connections and on his ability to BS like no ones business.
Click to expand...

yet he managed to win the nomination despite the establishment doing everything possible to stop him while Hillary-the self anointed Goddess of the DNC-who had the game rigged in her favor-has yet to wrap it up
 
matchlight said:
Like her fellow Marxist liar in the White House, Mrs. Clinton is proof that most so-called liberals are the very opposite of liberal. She is a statist with a taste for totalitarian rule, and like Obama, she sees the Constitution mostly as an obstacle to her quest for even-more-centralized government. What interests mutts like her and Obama most about the Constitution is how best to evade its restrictions on government.

Read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller. That just missed becoming the majority opinion, and it interprets the Second Amendment in a way that reads the individual right to keep and bear arms out of existence. As long as a government restriction of that right does not threaten the existence of a militia, according to Stevens, it will not violate the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

by then senile Stevens blathered that the USSC was overruling LOWER COURT holdings that were based on a DISHONEST mis-interpretation of the Cruikshank decision. Anti gun lower court judges pretended that since CRUIKSHANK correctly held that the Second Amendment DOES NOT CREATE a right for individuals to keep and bear arms (in reality it RECOGNIZES that right that the founders all presumed existed) these dishonest jurists pretended that no such right was guaranteed

Stevens doesn't trust honest citizens to be armed and wanted to pretend that the founders never wanted us to have arms-which flies in the face of EVERY document we can find from that era that discusses the issue
 
TurtleDude said:
by then senile Stevens blathered that the USSC was overruling LOWER COURT holdings that were based on a DISHONEST mis-interpretation of the Cruikshank decision. Anti gun lower court judges pretended that since CRUIKSHANK correctly held that the Second Amendment DOES NOT CREATE a right for individuals to keep and bear arms (in reality it RECOGNIZES that right that the founders all presumed existed) these dishonest jurists pretended that no such right was guaranteed

Stevens doesn't trust honest citizens to be armed and wanted to pretend that the founders never wanted us to have arms-which flies in the face of EVERY document we can find from that era that discusses the issue
Click to expand...

Agreed. That same Justice Stevens also authored an opinion which held that CO2 is a "pollutant" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act. As someone who has studied the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and read pored over the Congressional Record reading the debates on the bills that led to them, I know very well that no one debating the question of what was a pollutant was ever thinking of carbon dioxide.

But Justice Stevens made me aware of what the lawmakers should have put in the Clean Air Act, but didn't. He fixed that law to make it the way it should be. Now, I shudder every time I go into a McDonald's and see those machines dispensing that poison gas in soft drinks. All those open cups of Coke, bubbling away! And to think of how we humans are raping Gaia every day, just by exhaling that toxic pollutant! I tell you, our government should do something about it.

We may have lost Stevens, but we gained the Wise Latina. Surely she is one of the most impressive justices ever appointed to the Court, don't you agree? Nothing like that right-wing dope Clarence Thomas, who's too dumb even to ask any questions during oral debates on cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom