If Clinton Does Win

[Thorvir]

4 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

The 101 in Psyche's name isn't just a name, it's his age.

Ha!

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

In what way?

that we trust them to make laws? Yeah, that's what governments do. They also **** around with education, waste money on giving themselves pay rises and fanny about pandering to Rupert Murdoch and Gina the Hutt.

thats about it. We trust them to be as useful as a flyscreen on a submarine. 

 

Obviously, not every citizen in your countries feels the same but the effect is there.  The founders who risked everything for this nation understood what tyranny was and they ensured, through their writings, that their descendants would recognise it also.  They also provided us means to literally throw off such government when it inevitably reared its head.  I'm not talking about the griping and moaning that every tax payer indulges in.  I'm speaking of understanding from childhood that governments are not benign.  Governments have a role but it is extremely limited and it is voracious if it is allowed to exceed that role at all.  If you have any doubt of this then reading history will disabuse you of it quickly.  When I say that the UK and it's daughter nations "revere" government, I am being quite literal, though.  It's that whole monarchy aspect of your history.  I'm not saying it was all bad.  Obviously, Great Britain was a power for hundreds of years for a good reason.  In America, we were taught (used to be anyway) that being armed was our right, to protect ourselves from a government that forgot its place.  Your countries blindly follow their representatives and ultimately, if they become tyrannical, the citizens have no real recourse.  If a person trusts a government with the lives of his children, his future, that seems as reverential a stance as they come.

[aztek]

it will not matter to me 1 bit, trump, hilary or anyone else, my life will go the same way it did before.

[+OverSword]

If Clinton Does Win

What Will You Do?

 

Learn to fly an X-Wing.

 

 

[Ashotep]

Let's pray to god, cross our fingers, throw salt over our shoulders, rub that rabbits foot and hope Clinton never becomes president.  She is a globalist, open borders, bring on the refugees we can't vet zealot.  She can't stand ordinary Americans, she has one opinion for us ordinary Americans and another for her Wall Street backers.  They want more H1-B visas and she will give it to them no matter how much more it will hurt the middle class. 

[Quaentum]

16 hours ago, Lilly said:

I have a strong feeling Mrs Clinton will win. Taxes will go up (especially on what's left of the middle class). The cost of most people's health insurance will sky rocket (only the very poor will be exempt). Welfare numbers will rise. Small businesses will fail and large businesses will simply leave the country. Even our pitiful 1.5 percent growth will decline. The National Debt (that doubled over the last 8 years) will continue to rise. And of course, we will continue to receive (and support via Welfare and social programs) tens of thousands of Syrian war refugees.

On the other hand.  Under Trump, His tax increases are aimed at the lower and middle class and according to republican number crunchers, his tax overhaul will add 7 trillion to the debt just on it's own.

 

This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Quaentum]

16 hours ago, and then said:

If she wins then citizens who take the Second Amendment seriously had better stop complaining and start planning.  Some very serious, potentially life changing decisions are going to have to be made.  I, for one, don't plan to sit back and be robbed of any more rights by this group of criminals.  If it takes violence, so be it.

The only way to revoke the second amendment is to pass another amendment to overturn the second.  That requires, as a start, 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and that will never happen.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Quaentum said:

On the other hand.  Under Trump, His tax increases are aimed at the lower and middle class and according to republican number crunchers, his tax overhaul will add 7 trillion to the debt just on it's own.

 

This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That's still less than a quarter of what Obama has added to the national debt and Clinton would be just more Obama except probably more like Obama on steroids.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

it will not matter to me 1 bit, trump, hilary or anyone else, my life will go the same way it did before.

That's good to know.  Mine won't change dramatically, either.  At least, in the short term.  As she consolidates her power and her plans become more transparent, I suspect I'll become busier with planning and logistics.  I also plan to become a perfectly legal voice of public advocacy for the second amendment.  I'll teach a few marksmanship and gun safety courses as well.

[+and-then]

6 minutes ago, Quaentum said:

The only way to revoke the second amendment is to pass another amendment to overturn the second.  That requires, as a start, 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the Senate to approve it and that will never happen.

 

If the Democrats went about it that way, LEGALLY, then I would not resist.  IF it were truly done by the Constitution.  But you are correct, they could never get that kind of approval.  Instead, they will pass laws here and there that chip away and set precedents for the future.  The only proof needed to support that view is to look at the current laws and how they are being ignored.  If a person truly wanted to "take the pulse" of this nation regarding the Second Amendment, they need look no further than the events at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012.  The nation resoundingly said NO! when faced with the wave of protests for more gun control.  If 20 dead children won't cause the people to give up their rights then nothing will - and the Dems know this.  I suspect Hillary will use the Second Amendment as a punching bag - a signature piece - of her legislative legacy.  She won't be so bold as to sign an E.O. to confiscate weapons because she knows that blood would run in the streets and law enforcement would balk in many cases.  She'll probably begin by criminalizing private sales of firearms.  I use that term because she and her ilk know that the sales won't stop, won't even slow.  But later, when a person pops up on official radar for any reason and is found with a weapon with no record of who it was purchased from, the hammer will fall.  I think there are reasonable accommodations that might be made on this issue.  If a firearm is found at a crime scene and the records trace it back to me then I will gladly let the cops know who I sold it to.  Being pro 2nd isn't the same as being anti-law.  I would even support a law that made it criminal not to share that info IF a weapon was PROVEN to have been used in a violent crime.  The difference is in who possesses that info.  Until such a criminal use is verified, government has no need to know my business.  

Once she has replaced a conservative judge on the SCOTUS, she might well be emboldened to try an end run around the Constitution and sign an E.O. that allows for confiscation from different groups of individuals based on a criterion that the Left find essential.  It will be at THIS point when the trouble will begin in earnest.  The Constitutional process will have been openly abandoned and actual confiscation will have begun.  No going back at that point.  Elections have consequences - for everyone.

[Quaentum]

31 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's still less than a quarter of what Obama has added to the national debt and Clinton would be just more Obama except probably more like Obama on steroids.

When Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was 10.6 trillion.  It is estimated that when he leaves office the debt will be 21 trillion or an increase of about 10.4 trillion, basically doubling the debt.  That's everything during his 8 years in office.

Trumps single program to overhaul of the tax code, costing 7 trillion on it's own, is 67% of the entire debt added by Obama and 33% of what the debt will be when Obama leaves office. 

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Quaentum said:

When Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was 10.6 trillion.  It is estimated that when he leaves office the debt will be 21 trillion or an increase of about 10.4 trillion, basically doubling the debt.  That's everything during his 8 years in office.

Trumps single program to overhaul of the tax code, costing 7 trillion on it's own, is 67% of the entire debt added by Obama and 33% of what the debt will be when Obama leaves office. 

Can you elaborate on how his tax code will "cost 7 trillion".  We do know that debt is added by borrowing from the fed don't we?

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, and then said:

If the Democrats went about it that way, LEGALLY, then I would not resist.  IF it were truly done by the Constitution.  But you are correct, they could never get that kind of approval.  Instead, they will pass laws here and there that chip away and set precedents for the future.  The only proof needed to support that view is to look at the current laws and how they are being ignored.  If a person truly wanted to "take the pulse" of this nation regarding the Second Amendment, they need look no further than the events at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012.  The nation resoundingly said NO! when faced with the wave of protests for more gun control.  If 20 dead children won't cause the people to give up their rights then nothing will - and the Dems know this.  I suspect Hillary will use the Second Amendment as a punching bag - a signature piece - of her legislative legacy.  She won't be so bold as to sign an E.O. to confiscate weapons because she knows that blood would run in the streets and law enforcement would balk in many cases.  She'll probably begin by criminalizing private sales of firearms.  I use that term because she and her ilk know that the sales won't stop, won't even slow.  But later, when a person pops up on official radar for any reason and is found with a weapon with no record of who it was purchased from, the hammer will fall.  I think there are reasonable accommodations that might be made on this issue.  If a firearm is found at a crime scene and the records trace it back to me then I will gladly let the cops know who I sold it to.  Being pro 2nd isn't the same as being anti-law.  I would even support a law that made it criminal not to share that info IF a weapon was PROVEN to have been used in a violent crime.  The difference is in who possesses that info.  Until such a criminal use is verified, government has no need to know my business.  

Once she has replaced a conservative judge on the SCOTUS, she might well be emboldened to try an end run around the Constitution and sign an E.O. that allows for confiscation from different groups of individuals based on a criterion that the Left find essential.  It will be at THIS point when the trouble will begin in earnest.  The Constitutional process will have been openly abandoned and actual confiscation will have begun.  No going back at that point.  Elections have consequences - for everyone.

I would expect that they will come up with laws similar to those for alcohol that allow prosecution of bartenders for allowing someone to get drunk.  If you sell a gun that is later used in a crime you will be considered complicit.  This will discourage all private sales.  The law needn't be well written enough to result in convictions.  Just being arrested, detained on high bonds and lawyered into bankruptcy will discourage most people.

They do not need new amendments to alter the Constitution, only new interpretations.  Stacking the Court with liberal judges will only be window dressing in a Clinton administration.  We know that, just like with the FBI and AG, outcomes are predetermined and settled behind closed doors.  Change the definition, or interpretation, of a few key words, like  "militia" and while the second amendment remains in place the meaning is completely different.  Requiring a militia to be "well regulated" could result in weapon registration, and even storage in a common arsenal rather than in the home.  It all depends on how you read it.

[aztek]

.............

Edited October 11, 2016 by aztek

[aztek]

17 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I would expect that they will come up with laws similar to those for alcohol that allow prosecution of bartenders for allowing someone to get drunk.  If you sell a gun that is later used in a crime you will be considered complicit.  This will discourage all private sales. 

you seem to miss the biggest detail here, private sales are not registered, there is no way to know who sold the gun, unless someone comes forward and admits sale, there is no way to prove or to even know where the gun came from, and if gun is legally registered, than no one will be dumb enough to sell without proper transfer, which require ffl and background check,

Edited October 11, 2016 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

8 minutes ago, aztek said:

.............

I have days like this all the time bro. Posters gonna post.

[Big Jim]

8 minutes ago, aztek said:

you seem to miss the biggest detail here, private sales are not registered, there is no way to know who sold the gun, unless someone comes forward and admits sale, there is no way to prove or to even know where the gun came from, and if gun is leagly registered, than no one will be dumb enough to sell without proper transfer, which require ffl and background check,

I was responding specifically to what And Then said about "'gladly let(ing) the cops know who I sold it to."  But Hillary has also promised to close the loophole regarding private sales, which I take to mean that these will be required to be registered in the future, and the future of the Second Amendment under a Clinton Administration is what my comments were intended to address. 

[aztek]

18 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

But Hillary has also promised to close the loophole regarding private sales,

she lied,  that law even if passed will do nothing to stop private sales.  just like selling drugs is not affected by laws that prohibit sale of drugs. 

a person A has a gun that no one knows about, he sells it  to a person B.  now tell me how the law stops it from happening, why should a person A obey it, if it can not be enforced, and there is no proof he ever owned that gun.

if you sell your old bicycle to someone, how can it get traced to you? and when you selling your car, you don't just hand out the keys,and leave it registered and insured  to you, right? 

Edited October 11, 2016 by aztek

[Ashotep]

3 hours ago, Quaentum said:

On the other hand.  Under Trump, His tax increases are aimed at the lower and middle class and according to republican number crunchers, his tax overhaul will add 7 trillion to the debt just on it's own.

 

This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Doesn't sound like to me he plans on raising them on the lower and middle class.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/

 

[Ashotep]

From what I read she plans on enacting gun control using executive order. 

Quote

she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

http://conservativepost.com/wikileaks-hillary-to-implement-gun-control-by-executive-order/

 

[Big Jim]

Up to now, manufacturer liability has been limited to defective products, poor design or negligence. Imposing manufacturer liability on the misuse of properly designed and functioning products could be the beginning of the end for manufacturing in the United States.  The ridiculous, but logical, extension of that would be that if someone hit you with a bottle you could sue Coca Cola.  Who would want to risk making anything if you could be held responsible for the actions of every idiot whose hands it fell into?

[aztek]

what we need is more states to pass laws like in Co. if you take me to a civil court and you loose, you pay my lawyers fee, this will put an end to millions of frivolous lawsuits. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by aztek

[Parsec]

20 hours ago, and then said:

If she wins then citizens who take the Second Amendment seriously had better stop complaining and start planning.  Some very serious, potentially life changing decisions are going to have to be made.  I, for one, don't plan to sit back and be robbed of any more rights by this group of criminals.  If it takes violence, so be it.

Soooooo hold on a second.

Are you the same person that started this? 

 

So I was wrong,  it wasn't Ella,  it was you (well, it is now, so let's say that I saw the future)! 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 hours ago, and then said:

Obviously, not every citizen in your countries feels the same but the effect is there.  The founders who risked everything for this nation understood what tyranny was and they ensured, through their writings, that their descendants would recognise it also.  They also provided us means to literally throw off such government when it inevitably reared its head.  I'm not talking about the griping and moaning that every tax payer indulges in.  I'm speaking of understanding from childhood that governments are not benign.  Governments have a role but it is extremely limited and it is voracious if it is allowed to exceed that role at all.  If you have any doubt of this then reading history will disabuse you of it quickly.  When I say that the UK and it's daughter nations "revere" government, I am being quite literal, though.  It's that whole monarchy aspect of your history.  I'm not saying it was all bad.  Obviously, Great Britain was a power for hundreds of years for a good reason.  In America, we were taught (used to be anyway) that being armed was our right, to protect ourselves from a government that forgot its place.  Your countries blindly follow their representatives and ultimately, if they become tyrannical, the citizens have no real recourse.  If a person trusts a government with the lives of his children, his future, that seems as reverential a stance as they come.

Yes you ancestors fought, bled and died for your freedom and all we did was ask nicely for it, you're so much greater than us because you can take up arms against your government and we can't. 

[F3SS]

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And perhaps, reflect a little about how the hell you guys managed to get into a situation where those two were the only 'candidates'.  Small problem with your system, do ya think?

Trump was elected to his current position against all odds and every power that be on The Hill. So we know how he got there. Well we also know how Hillary got where she is today. The DNC had a concerted effort to derail Bernie Sanders campaign, give him no attention and not help. She's been preselected since 2008 because damnit it's her turn to be president and damnit it's time we have a woman in the White House. The deck has been literally stacked in her favor since the beginning. I haven;t seen them yet but according to a quick bit I heard on the radio on the way home today's wikileaks drop show proof of collusion between her and all the big media. No journalism or impartiality. Her interviews are scripted, she's been given a heads up on debate questions and even had the power of veto against debate questions she didn't like. W.T.F.?!?!?!? Point is, we've been given little choice regarding her candidacy.