• 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!

I love this ad

haymarket said:
There are times - like right now - when I miss teaching Government and see a wonderful opportunity for a lesson. In this case lets all watch this latest NRA hit piece and then go back and read the Amendment in question, state what it is protected, and then produce the statements from Clinton that she wants to abolish that right to keep and bear arms.

That would be a great lesson in government.

Its too bad the NRA members are not mandated to go through those steps.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say, because I have read the 2nd Amendment and understand what right it protects, and more importantly, who it restricts from infringing upon that right.

As for being an NRA member, I've never been one. Yet, your post may just be the motivation I need to do just that. So, I'm sure the NRA would be proud to thank you for adding one more new member to their ranks if I do choose to do so.
 
haymarket said:
the only way this ad makes sense is if one lives in an alternate reality where Clinton has openly stated her opposition to the Second Amendment advocating its repeat. And that is not even close by a mile.

This is simply more NRA over the top hyperbole whipping up the true believers on the alt-right who subscribe to their alternate reality in an America which exists only in their own minds.
Click to expand...

You seem to imagine that just by asserting that your views are part of reality and those of others you disagree with are not, you make that so. I could as easily say that you subscribe to an alternative reality in an America which exists only in your own mind, and no one could prove that my assertion was any less true than yours.

To say that Mrs. Clinton does not want the Second Amendment repealed may be technically true, but it is highly misleading. You might as well say the Slaughter-House Cases did not technically repeal the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Restrict a constitutional provision so severely as to make it a nullity, and you may as well have repealed it. That's what this damned Marxist liar wants to do to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
Bob N said:
I didn't know that Hillary was running for the Supreme Court. How does she overturn it if she is not a sitting judge?
Click to expand...

Uhhhhh are you serious?
 
matchlight said:
You seem to imagine that just by asserting that your views are part of reality and those of others you disagree with are not, you make that so. I could as easily say that you subscribe to an alternative reality in an America which exists only in your own mind, and no one could prove that my assertion was any less true than yours.

To say that Mrs. Clinton does not want the Second Amendment repealed may be technically true, but it is highly misleading. You might as well say the Slaughter-House Cases did not technically repeal the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Restrict a constitutional provision so severely as to make it a nullity, and you may as well have repealed it. That's what this damned Marxist liar wants to do to the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Reality is that Clinton has never called for policies which would result in the nightmare scenario in that NRA ad.
 
countryboy said:
POTUS appoints SCOTUS, but you already knew that. :roll:
Click to expand...

He's ignoring two facts that he should already know

1) that the Democrat appointees to the USSC have always voted against the second amendment as in individual right

2) that Hillary and/or members of her inner circle (like her daughter) have promised to pick justices who will overturn Heller.


its another case of feeling a need to try to contradict points he doesn't like but not having any facts to do so
 
countryboy said:
POTUS appoints SCOTUS, but you already knew that. :roll:
Click to expand...
As a bonus I'll even throw in a Senate Judiciary Committee to boot, too. :roll:
 
Bob N said:
As a bonus I'll even throw in a Senate Judiciary Committee to boot, too. :roll:
Click to expand...

rather than address your prior evasions, why do you think all the anti gun groups are endorsing Hillary? Why do you think the NRA is endorsing Trump
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Because the NRA are hypocrites for supporting stop and frisk?
Click to expand...

has the NRA supported this

and are the bannerrhoid organizations against targeting potential criminals but banning guns from honest people
 
TurtleDude said:
has the NRA supported this

and are the bannerrhoid organizations against targeting potential criminals but banning guns from honest people
Click to expand...

Trump supports stop and frisk, a policy that could lead to police confescating law abiding people of their firearms...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Trump supports stop and frisk, a policy that could lead to police confescating law abiding people of their firearms...
Click to expand...

if you are carrying legally, how is a cop going to justify confiscating a legally carried firearm without the cop being personally sued under 42 USC 1983. If you aren't carrying legally, you are in violation of state law and if you are a convicted felon, you are in violation of 18 USC 922 which is a federal felony.

its funny watching people who generally support gun bans and other Democrat schemes that pander to those who want something DONE about gun crime whining about stop and frisk because that really impacts criminals.
 
TurtleDude said:
if you are carrying legally, how is a cop going to justify confiscating a legally carried firearm without the cop being personally sued under 42 USC 1983. If you aren't carrying legally, you are in violation of state law and if you are a convicted felon, you are in violation of 18 USC 922 which is a federal felony.

its funny watching people who generally support gun bans and other Democrat schemes that pander to those who want something DONE about gun crime whining about stop and frisk because that really impacts criminals.
Click to expand...

This is one statement that Trump said about stop and frisk.

“If they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person and they’ll look and they’ll take the gun away,” Trump said Thursday on Fox News, laying out his vision of how the practice works. “They’ll stop, they’ll frisk, and they’ll take the gun away and they won’t have anything to shoot with.”

“I mean, how it’s not being used in Chicago is ― to be honest with you, it’s quite unbelievable, and you know the police, the local police, they know who has a gun who shouldn’t be having the gun. They understand that,” Trump added.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I found that quote in this article

Gun Rights Advocates Go Silent When Trump Wants To Frisk Black People | Huffington Post
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
This is one statement that Trump said about stop and frisk.



Just for the record, I found that quote in this article

Gun Rights Advocates Go Silent When Trump Wants To Frisk Black People | Huffington Post
Click to expand...

are you unable to comprehend that If I have a license to carry the cop cannot take my gun away? are you also unable to fathom that if the person is found to have a gun and that is in violation of the law, the cop can arrest the person

or are you gun banners only happy when laws are passed that harass honest people but won't be enforced?
 
TurtleDude said:
are you unable to comprehend that If I have a license to carry the cop cannot take my gun away? are you also unable to fathom that if the person is found to have a gun and that is in violation of the law, the cop can arrest the person

or are you gun banners only happy when laws are passed that harass honest people but won't be enforced?
Click to expand...

If the cops are basing their suspicions on other criteria, the potential exists for the police to stop and frisk someone who is legally carrying a firearm but has it confiscated just for that person having marijuana.
 
TurtleDude said:
BTY the HUFFPUFF is a hard core Hillary fluffing service and that stupid article isn't able to understand several points including the fact that almost all the gun crime in chicago is perpetrated by black males carrying guns illegally.
Click to expand...

Are there no African Americans that have legal firearm permits in Chicago?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If the cops are basing their suspicions on other criteria, the potential exists for the police to stop and frisk someone who is legally carrying a firearm but has it confiscated just for that person having marijuana.
Click to expand...

that's a crime to carry a weapon while having illegal narcotics

and if you have been smoking dope that's a violation to be packing heat

seems you gun banners are against actions that actually target criminal behavior but you are all in favor of laws that only impact honest gun owners


which proves my point that the left wing gun control laws not only are designed to harass the law abiding, they are an attempt to pretend Democrats are tough on crime without actually hurting criminals
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Are there no African Americans that have legal firearm permits in Chicago?
Click to expand...

I am sure they are-and if they are stopped and frisked and have a firearm and a permit what is going to happen?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't know...

Nothing might happen, or another philando castile will happen
Click to expand...

well tell me what grounds a cop would have to confiscate a legally carried pistol?
 
haymarket said:
Yes you did.
Click to expand...

No I didn't apparently you don't understand the difference between the different standards of judicial review






And nothing I have advocated violates that and the right would be preserved to be exercised.
Click to expand...

Yes you did you claimed that gun rights should be subjected to reasonable regulation. Which they are not. If you have ever studied any constitutional law, which its painfully obvious that you haven't you might know the quote from Gerald Gunther (who by the way literally wrote the textbook for constitutional law) "strict in theory, fatal in fact". Which essentially means when applied correctly strict scrutiny will overturn pretty much every regulation.
 
TurtleDude said:
BTY the HUFFPUFF is a hard core Hillary fluffing service and that stupid article isn't able to understand several points including the fact that almost all the gun crime in chicago is perpetrated by black males carrying guns illegally.
Click to expand...

In another context, that might be the single most disturbing mental image ever created
 
haymarket said:
There are times - like right now - when I miss teaching Government and see a wonderful opportunity for a lesson. In this case lets all watch this latest NRA hit piece and then go back and read the Amendment in question, state what it is protected, and then produce the statements from Clinton that she wants to abolish that right to keep and bear arms.

That would be a great lesson in government.

Its too bad the NRA members are not mandated to go through those steps.
Click to expand...

The only thing that Hillary said with reference to Heller, is that states should be able to enact their own common sense gun laws to protect their residents. She did not elaborate further.
 
Beaudreaux said:
By appointing SCOTUS justices, and only SCOTUS justices, that agree with her ideology regarding restricting the 2nd Amendment to the point that it's basically repealed via executive/judicial fiat, rather than through the legislative branch.
Click to expand...

Hillary has no "ideology" with respect to the second amendment, other than leaving it - as is. There will never be a Supreme Court Justice with an "ideology" about the second amendment.
 
Gee, that's funny; there appears to be no quote from Hilary Clinton where she actually states that the Heller decision should be overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom