• 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

jet57 said:
Well, that's only one. Secondly, exactly how is a supreme court justice going to get away with violating the second amendment? Lastly, unless Hillary gets a super majority, she's not going to be able to do much of anything. So, your point doesn't seem to add up there.
Click to expand...

It is projected the next President may pick as many as 4.

I'm not sure how to answer your question regarding the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment. Are you familiar with the Heller case?
 
ocean515 said:
It is projected the next President may pick as many as 4.

I'm not sure how to answer your question regarding the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment. Are you familiar with the Heller case?
Click to expand...

I am quite familiar with Heller. I don't see how 9 liberal judges could have any effect on the 2nd amendment.
 
jet57 said:
I am quite familiar with Heller. I don't see how 9 liberal judges could have any effect on the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

that's really silly. Nine justices who hate the second amendment the same way Sotomayor and RBG do will pretend that it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't in the National military
 
VanceMack said:
Even with Supreme Court justices, they cannot create law.
Click to expand...

There are many qualified people who would suggest otherwise. Interpretation can be just as effective as creating new law.

Of course there is the Obamacare ruling where Roberts created law out of thin air.
 
jet57 said:
I am quite familiar with Heller. I don't see how 9 liberal judges could have any effect on the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I see where you are heading, and that is why everyone should think very carefully about letting the government decide what a gun is, and who gets to own what the government defines as one.

A liberal Supreme court could allow that to happen.
 
ocean515 said:
I see where you are heading, and that is why everyone should think very carefully about letting the government decide what a gun is, and who gets to own what the government defines as one.

A liberal Supreme court could allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

well we have seen politicians like Hillary lie out of her ass when she claims she fully supports the second amendment but Cities like DC should be able to "protect toddlers" by completely banning any citizen from owning a handgun

Its like saying you completely support Roe v Wade but think any state that wants to can completely ban abortion
 
VanceMack said:
They rule on laws...they dont create laws.
Click to expand...

There are two kinds of governing law in the English common law system: statutory law, and case law.

They make case law.
 
TurtleDude said:
well we have seen politicians like Hillary lie out of her ass when she claims she fully supports the second amendment but Cities like DC should be able to "protect toddlers" by completely banning any citizen from owning a handgun

Its like saying you completely support Roe v Wade but think any state that wants to can completely ban abortion
Click to expand...

No question.

The government could decide a gun, as known to the founders, is a muzzle loading flintlock, and the Supreme Court could find that limitation is within Constitutional agreement.
 
ocean515 said:
No question.

The government could decide a gun, as known to the founders, is a muzzle loading flintlock, and the Supreme Court could find that limitation is within Constitutional agreement.
Click to expand...

sadly, we have had a century of justices who put their own agendas ahead of their oaths of office
 
ocean515 said:
No question.

The government could decide a gun, as known to the founders, is a muzzle loading flintlock, and the Supreme Court could find that limitation is within Constitutional agreement.
Click to expand...

They'd also have to account for the multi-shot firearms in existence at the time of ratification:

Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718

And ignore Caetano vs Massachusetts to boot. It would also be interesting to see that impact of "technology known to the Framers" on the 1st and 4th Amendments.
 
Rucker61 said:
They'd also have to account for the multi-shot firearms in existence at the time of ratification:

Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718

And ignore Caetano vs Massachusetts to boot. It would also be interesting to see that impact of "technology known to the Framers" on the 1st and 4th Amendments.
Click to expand...

Ok.

The point is, the Government could decide to define what the right to arms is, and pass laws related to that, similar to the UK, etc.. If a hunting rifle is allowed, isn't that enough?

The Supreme Court could uphold that restriction.
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary is already acting as if she has won. And she may well have. But its doubtful she will get congress and she will lose seats in 2018. So what is she planning on doing?

Error | Buckeye Firearms Association


“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do?” Feingold answers, “Well, there might be executive order.”
The video also includes footage of one of the hosts of the fundraiser, Integrated Archive Systems CEO Amy Rao, expressing how she thinks Clinton would pursue control. In regards to guns, Rao told O’Keefe, “Hillary wants to shut it down,” adding, “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…” Rao also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last August.
Click to expand...

I believe Most of us, that are awake, know what she wants to do and know that she will probably get at least part of what she wants. The American People would never stand for her full blown agenda, but we both know she will get parts of it and that is reason enough to think ahead.
 
Rucker61 said:
They'd also have to account for the multi-shot firearms in existence at the time of ratification:

Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718

And ignore Caetano vs Massachusetts to boot. It would also be interesting to see that impact of "technology known to the Framers" on the 1st and 4th Amendments.
Click to expand...

anyone who knew of repeating weapons can easily foresee ones that shot faster. In reality, our modern gatling guns and machine guns were not all that hard to conceive of. the technology really isn't that big a jump. As I have noted, my Grandfather, a highly decorated WWI artillery captain and a fairly serious student of military history was figuring the planes of the next WW (i.e. WW2) would be 2-3 times as fast as the ones of his war with far more range and heavier armaments. He was right. What I doubt any of the founders thought of was internet communications or other electrical driven communications.
 
ocean515 said:
Ok.

The point is, the Government could decide to define what the right to arms is, and pass laws related to that, similar to the UK, etc.. If a hunting rifle is allowed, isn't that enough?

The Supreme Court could uphold that restriction.
Click to expand...

Then what?
 
apdst said:
Hitler told the Jews they were being sent to the concentration camps to keep them safe, too.

Obama said that you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

Pardon me if I don't trust those assholes.
Click to expand...

There it is. Godwin's Law.
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary is already acting as if she has won. And she may well have. But its doubtful she will get congress and she will lose seats in 2018. So what is she planning on doing?

Error | Buckeye Firearms Association


“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do?” Feingold answers, “Well, there might be executive order.”
The video also includes footage of one of the hosts of the fundraiser, Integrated Archive Systems CEO Amy Rao, expressing how she thinks Clinton would pursue control. In regards to guns, Rao told O’Keefe, “Hillary wants to shut it down,” adding, “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…” Rao also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last August.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia?
 
danielpalos said:
What is wrong with better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia?
Click to expand...

You still talking? Good Grief! You have no idea what you are talking about, just find another topic already, maybe one that you actually understand.
 
ocean515 said:
There are many qualified people who would suggest otherwise. Interpretation can be just as effective as creating new law.

Of course there is the Obamacare ruling where Roberts created law out of thin air.
Click to expand...

What law did Roberts create?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
danielpalos said:
What is wrong with better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia?
Click to expand...

"If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…"

How is this "more regulated militia"? Doesn't "more regulated militia" lead to "shall not be infringed"?
 
danielpalos said:
What is wrong with better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia?
Click to expand...

1) the first is archaic

2) the second everyone agrees with

3) the third has nothing to do with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom