supervike Posted October 23, 2016 #1 Share Posted October 23, 2016 https://www.yahoo.com/gma/hillary-clinton-slammed-her-characterization-supreme-court-gun-211105057--abc-news-topstories.html Interesting point on how Hillary views the 2nd Amendment, especially as it deals with a City wide gun ban vs. The right to bear arms. She claims the court has gotten it wrong. Of course she says its' 'for the children'. But, as they point out in the article, that seems to be a distraction at best. Then, at the end, you get to hear Donalds' 'Thoughts' on the matter....Which prove to me he has no clue what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 23, 2016 #2 Share Posted October 23, 2016 if she says children she gets more vote. (page died on me couldn't get to trumps remarks.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 23, 2016 Author #3 Share Posted October 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, danielost said: if she says children she gets more vote. (page died on me couldn't get to trumps remarks.) Trumps comments were very akin to a Jr. High Student giving a Book report on a book they did not read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurzweil Posted October 23, 2016 #4 Share Posted October 23, 2016 19 minutes ago, supervike said: Trumps comments were very akin to a Jr. High Student giving a Book report on a book they did not read. I actually did that but it was grade school. "Treasure island" I think it was. Wore a fake beard and eye patch for effect. I admit it was pathetic but i walked away with a B- probably for the costume. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 23, 2016 #5 Share Posted October 23, 2016 you can defend something with out understanding it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 23, 2016 Author #6 Share Posted October 23, 2016 34 minutes ago, danielost said: you can defend something with out understanding it. Very true Daniel, you do it quite a bit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 23, 2016 #7 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, supervike said: Trumps comments were very akin to a Jr. High Student giving a Book report on a book they did not read. Have you been reading this too Supervike? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-book-report_us_58085172e4b0b994d4c46953 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted October 23, 2016 #8 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I might be stepping in it here, but I live in a semi-rural community of hunters and outdoors men. At times, there have been up to 5 guns in my household. I am not opposed to gun ownership, nor am I opposed to gun control. It seems like the most rabid second amendment fear mongers are the ones that are afraid they couldn't buy a gun if there was a background check. Somebody might think they were dangerous or crazy. and there might be a basis for it. The second amendment refers to a well ordered militia bearing arms. Never once have I been asked to bring a change of socks and three days worth of food to assembly and drill in an orderly fashion to defend the Constitution and government of the United States. The Second Amendment is really not the wholesale right for any citizen to own and carry any firearm they desire without civic restriction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted October 23, 2016 #9 Share Posted October 23, 2016 There are restrictions and limitations. Look at Chicago with the stringiest gun control regulations in the U.S. they have the worst gun violence in the country. I have found the opposite of what you said....the people I know and have known all my life that are gun owners are worried that Hillary will use any excuse to take away guns that are already owned. These are people who absolutely have no concern whatsoever about passing a background check. IMO the 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution for the very reason that you've said it wasn't. So that in times of trouble or problems the government could call on it's citizens to supplement regular militia OR in an extreme case, it keeps the government in check and from overstepping it's boundaries because the government is aware that the citizens they are governing are willing and able to protect their Constitutional rights in a very basic way, if necessary. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 23, 2016 #10 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, supervike said: Very true Daniel, you do it quite a bit. so do all the sciencetestisms on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 23, 2016 #11 Share Posted October 23, 2016 39 minutes ago, Tatetopa said: I might be stepping in it here, but I live in a semi-rural community of hunters and outdoors men. At times, there have been up to 5 guns in my household. I am not opposed to gun ownership, nor am I opposed to gun control. It seems like the most rabid second amendment fear mongers are the ones that are afraid they couldn't buy a gun if there was a background check. Somebody might think they were dangerous or crazy. and there might be a basis for it. The second amendment refers to a well ordered militia bearing arms. Never once have I been asked to bring a change of socks and three days worth of food to assembly and drill in an orderly fashion to defend the Constitution and government of the United States. The Second Amendment is really not the wholesale right for any citizen to own and carry any firearm they desire without civic restriction. they have been arguing about that since it was passed. how ever the supreme court says everyone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent0range Posted October 23, 2016 #12 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 hour ago, skliss said: There are restrictions and limitations. Look at Chicago with the stringiest gun control regulations in the U.S. they have the worst gun violence in the country. I have found the opposite of what you said....the people I know and have known all my life that are gun owners are worried that Hillary will use any excuse to take away guns that are already owned. These are people who absolutely have no concern whatsoever about passing a background check. IMO the 2nd amendment was put into the Constitution for the very reason that you've said it wasn't. So that in times of trouble or problems the government could call on it's citizens to supplement regular militia OR in an extreme case, it keeps the government in check and from overstepping it's boundaries because the government is aware that the citizens they are governing are willing and able to protect their Constitutional rights in a very basic way, if necessary. I never understood this argument. Chicago has more gang members BY A LOT than any other city..approximately 100,000 more than LA. If you put 150,000 sex offenders in a city, even though rape is illegal, would sex crimes not go up? Gang members aren't born from strict gun laws. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skliss Posted October 23, 2016 #13 Share Posted October 23, 2016 The laws are passed to supposedly make it harder for people to get guns....unfortunately it only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get them and harder for them to defend themselves. The criminals...otoh...have no problem ignoring the tough laws and get guns. Much easier to prey on the lawful citizens when you are fairly sure they have no way to defend themselves. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted October 24, 2016 #14 Share Posted October 24, 2016 3 hours ago, Agent0range said: I never understood this argument. Chicago has more gang members BY A LOT than any other city..approximately 100,000 more than LA. If you put 150,000 sex offenders in a city, even though rape is illegal, would sex crimes not go up? Gang members aren't born from strict gun laws. The strict gun laws are in reaction to the violent gang members. And it has no affect. Is not all gun control laws just reactions to gun violence? I'm confused what your point is. If it has no affect on the gangs on Chicago how would gun control have affect on the violence with gangs in the rest of the country? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent0range Posted October 24, 2016 #15 Share Posted October 24, 2016 26 minutes ago, spartan max2 said: The strict gun laws are in reaction to the violent gang members. And it has no affect. Is not all gun control laws just reactions to gun violence? I'm confused what your point is. If it has no affect on the gangs on Chicago how would gun control have affect on the violence with gangs in the rest of the country? I'm talking about COMMON SENSE gun laws. Background checks, registration..Chicago is always brought up. Gang violence is a completely separate issue from common sense gun laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 24, 2016 Author #16 Share Posted October 24, 2016 6 hours ago, Gromdor said: Have you been reading this too Supervike? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-book-report_us_58085172e4b0b994d4c46953 Ha! I haven't seen that. Comedy gold in there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted October 24, 2016 #17 Share Posted October 24, 2016 6 hours ago, Agent0range said: I'm talking about COMMON SENSE gun laws. Background checks, registration..Chicago is always brought up. Gang violence is a completely separate issue from common sense gun laws. Historically there is no common sense in forcing registration. Unless of course the goal is confiscation. BTW Gangs thrive in places like Chicago cause they can run rough shot over everyone. No one has a chance to protect themselves. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 24, 2016 #18 Share Posted October 24, 2016 19 hours ago, Tatetopa said: The second amendment refers to a well ordered militia bearing arms. nope, read it again, and note all the comas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 25, 2016 #19 Share Posted October 25, 2016 On 10/23/2016 at 7:00 PM, spartan max2 said: The strict gun laws are in reaction to the violent gang members. And it has no affect. Is not all gun control laws just reactions to gun violence? I'm confused what your point is. If it has no affect on the gangs on Chicago how would gun control have affect on the violence with gangs in the rest of the country? they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 25, 2016 #20 Share Posted October 25, 2016 On 10/23/2016 at 7:27 PM, Agent0range said: I'm talking about COMMON SENSE gun laws. Background checks, registration..Chicago is always brought up. Gang violence is a completely separate issue from common sense gun laws. except they take guns from law-a-biding citizens. making it easier and safer for the gangs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted October 26, 2016 #21 Share Posted October 26, 2016 2 hours ago, danielost said: except they take guns from law-a-biding citizens. no one has done this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted October 26, 2016 #22 Share Posted October 26, 2016 8 hours ago, ninjadude said: no one has done this the laws do, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 26, 2016 #23 Share Posted October 26, 2016 10 hours ago, ninjadude said: no one has done this that is pretty ignorant statement to make, but than again, it is you who made it, it has been done in last 10 years, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted October 26, 2016 Author #24 Share Posted October 26, 2016 28 minutes ago, aztek said: that is pretty ignorant statement to make, but than again, it is you who made it, it has been done in last 10 years, What do you mean aztek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted October 26, 2016 #25 Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, supervike said: What do you mean aztek? Im very curious about that myself. Are you saying states haven't made laws that took the constitutional rights of owning a fire arm away from citizens aztek? Edited October 26, 2016 by preacherman76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now