Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

a reply to: yuppa

Arms is IN THE AMENDMENT

Yes it is, but arms was not defined. I talk to many people that are pro-2nd such as myself and I rarely find two people that can completely agree on it's definition. Even you had to use a definition from an outside source, did you not?

The definition i used is basically the same one used by the framers in their defining its usage.

Basically? That's a very uncertain term to use when you're talking about an inalienable right granted by the constitution. Forgive me if I wish to have a bit of teeth to my god-given rights.

I can purchase a fully auto firearm if i have a class 3 license. Its wrong to restrict it but its not banned either so its not really abridging the right to have one is it?

That question was a baited question. Of course I knew the answer and knew how you would respond.

Now ask yourself this: Where in the constitution does it say that we have the right to bear arms, but not fully-auto firearms unless you have a class 3 licence?

If you are granted the right to bear arms, in which it's sole purpose is to protect one's self from a tyrannical government, what sense does it make that you have to ask that very same government for permission and a licence to bear the arm of your choice?

It doesn't make sense does it? Since the 2nd amendment was not specific it has allowed the very government we are granted a right to protect ourselves from to define it as they see fit.

And too many pro-2nd amendment people cannot even come to grips with that reality. They claim they are pro-2nd but they just scream "shall not be infringed" and "we don't need new laws. We need to enforce existing laws". All the while not realizing that their rights have already been infringed and you're ok with that as long as they don't infringe anymore.

All due respect, I don't need you guys defending my right to bear arms because you don't even know what your right means. You cannot even see what's in front of your eyes and yet expect to have a say in the debate.

originally posted by: yuppa
Removed because Im tired of beating my head against the wall talking to people who are intentionally stupider than anyone else on this planet can possibly be.(if i didnt mention your name Im not talking about you)

So I responded accordingly and you remove your post after the fact for the purpose of damage control?

Bad form sir. Bad form.

Fortunately I was able to quote the parts that mattered most. Do you wish to respond to those arguments, or must you resort to calling a poor old socialist stupid while trying to make the case that arguing with one is like talking to a brick wall?

Be a man and engage in constructive debate or admit that your position may be flawed.

A right is only as good as your ability to defend it.

U.S. residents need guns because they're petrified without them. Please don't take fretful, timorous U.S. residents' guns. They're shiver and tremble with catatonic fear... =(

a reply to: AlexJowls

If you knew the bloody history of government, you would be scared and wanting to hold on to your guns as well. Thankfully our founding fathers understood the extreme danger of government, hence the 2nd A.

originally posted by: neo96
What Clinton fails to see. What her supporters fail to see. Is that gun control created the so called gun lobby. It is irresponsible not to admit the epic failures of the past 80 years. That gun control doesn't work. Never will work. Because a small percentage of the population is NEVER going to follow those laws or the law that already covers murder.

No one is expecting that to happen overnight. I don't think you understand the argument. Basically the argument goes like this:
If guns are taken off the streets, the supply of new guns diminishes over time. This leads to handguns becoming more and more expensive. Eventually a small time criminal will not be able to afford a gun and instead have to resort to another weapon. Due to the heightened expense, gangs will also be forced to abandon most of their guns in favor of other weapons.

Furthermore, the law abiding citizen who no longer carries a handgun, cannot get into an emotionally heated argument and pull his weapon. This category is where the majority of shootings come from.

The downside to this is that law abiding citizens no longer have guns to protect themselves, but at the same time they also (eventually) don't need those guns nearly as much either.

a reply to: southbeach

Firstly, congratulations!!

Secondly, amazing isn't it? How Americans like myself who were born here, have lived here all our lives, care less for our freedoms than someone, you as an example, who isn't from here originally. Amazing, and truly frightening.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure what's ambiguous about this. It straight up says "shall not be infringed". No exceptions. Any laws that infringe upon my rights are, by definition, unconstitutional.

a reply to: Aazadan

Furthermore, the law abiding citizen who no longer carries a handgun, cannot get into an emotionally heated argument and pull his weapon. This category is where the majority of shootings come from. 

Like a cop shooting his wife/girlfriend I n a heated argument? Google it, it happens.

If we ban alcohol, no one will ever be drunk again, and alcohol will become so expensive that no one can afford it? Look up the 18th Amendment/Volstead Act.

Lol funny. No one's really learned anything from the Gangster Prohibition Era. If they outlaw guns allot of people will get rich and you can count on crime going through the roof in all major citys, more so than already.

It's about as dumb as the failed Drug War.

Lmfao!

Hillary Clinton:

"The people we're fighting now are the same people we funded 20 years ago".

From the "if I admit to my crimes it alleviates any responsibility on my part" department...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: southbeach

Firstly, congratulations!!

Secondly, amazing isn't it? How Americans like myself who were born here, have lived here all our lives, care less for our freedoms than someone, you as an example, who isn't from here originally. Amazing, and truly frightening.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure what's ambiguous about this. It straight up says "shall not be infringed". No exceptions. Any laws that infringe upon my rights are, by definition, unconstitutional.

I have a suggestion. lets just ignore all the people who are being intentionally obtuse on the issue. They prefeer circle arguments and just keep arguing because thy get off on it. No point in arguing the issue.

a reply to: yuppa

I safely assume that was a pot-shot at me. So be it.

If I was being intentionally obtuse and did not have a valid argument, then why did you feel it necessary to remove your post well after the fact and replace it with snide remarks and ad hominem attacks? You were at such a loss of words that you had to call me stupid. If I am just a stupid moron you should have been able to easily put my argument down. But you still have yet to do so.

Like I said before, if you are any indication of the the type of people defending our 2nd amendments rights in this country, we are screwed and no thanks. Not only do you accept that our rights have already been infringed upon and find it acceptable, you cannot enter the debate without resorting to low-ball tactics and name calling.

ATTENTION:

The topic is not each other or opinions of each other. Be warned if it does not stop, posting bans may follow. Please return to the topic.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Moderator

a reply to: Aazadan

No one is expecting that to happen overnight. I don't think you understand the argument. Basically the argument goes like this: If guns are taken off the streets, the supply of new guns diminishes over time. This leads to handguns becoming more and more expensive. Eventually a small time criminal will not be able to afford a gun and instead have to resort to another weapon. Due to the heightened expense, gangs will also be forced to abandon most of their guns in favor of other weapons.

Slight problem with that.

In the real world Chicago tells us the reality.The highest gun restrictions in the country, next to California.

That is a pipe dream.

Furthermore, the law abiding citizen who no longer carries a handgun, cannot get into an emotionally heated argument and pull his weapon. This category is where the majority of shootings come from.

The law abiding citizen doesn't go around murder people.

!. Because they are LAW ABIDING.
2. murder is illegal.

The downside to this is that law abiding citizens no longer have guns to protect themselves, but at the same time they also (eventually) don't need those guns nearly as much either.

That not the states call to make or anyone's.

Neither one has any right to tell me or anyone else what we need or don't need.

Especially since gun control is a violation of the US constitution.

2nd through 10, and the most fabulous 14th amendments.

She flips on whatever makes her popular at the moment. Pandering at its finest - which really isn't hard for a female Democrat to do.

The only thing she's solid about is women's rights. She's been sincere about that since before her first wrinkle appeared.

I honestly don't see Hillary C winning the dem primary. What I do worry about is Trump being paid off to be a spoiler and to run as an independent and to bleed off enough votes to make it possible for the dem candidate to win. But really, as long as it isn't Bush or Hillary( we've had 20+ years of stooges and puppets and sellouts with it getting worse and worse) and Christy hasn't got a prayer, I'm okay with just about anybody. I'd like Rand Paul or Walker, sure.

This year's crop has me feeling that everyone who isn't Bernie Sanders is a giant bag of dicks.
They're all ignorant, self-serving drones - racist, corrupt... I could go on.
Then there's Bernie. About the closest thing to a saving grace as US politics is likely to get.

originally posted by: DEIKOBOL
This year's crop has me feeling that everyone who isn't Bernie Sanders is a giant bag of dicks.
They're all ignorant, self-serving drones - racist, corrupt... I could go on.
Then there's Bernie. About the closest thing to a saving grace as US politics is likely to get.

I'm with you there. I will be very disappointed if Hilary gets the Democratic nomination. It will show how uninformed and idiotic our country is, if it wasn't blatantly obvious already. With all the scandals and shady nonsense she's been involved in, its miraculous she may become our next president. Sanders is the first honest candidate to have a shot at winning in a long time. I can only hope that the few gun-owning liberals are turned away from Hilary.

originally posted by: neo96
Slight problem with that.

In the real world Chicago tells us the reality.The highest gun restrictions in the country, next to California.

That is a pipe dream.

You can't look at municipal restrictions because any criminal can simply leave Chicago for a day and get a weapon. The sort of ban people are talking about can only be effective if given a lot of time and national coverage. A city or state only ban does nothing other than to harm the citizens.

The law abiding citizen doesn't go around murder people.

!. Because they are LAW ABIDING.
2. murder is illegal.

When being rational sure. Sometimes people get angry, tempers flare, alcohol clouds judgment, and so on. This is part of why there's a waiting period on buying weapons. Handguns are the worst for this type of crime because people carry them. Larger weapons (which are also more deadly) have a much lower rate of this happening. This is part of why I would be more willing to support a handgun ban and why "assault rifle" bans are utterly ridiculous.

That not the states call to make or anyone's.

Neither one has any right to tell me or anyone else what we need or don't need.

Especially since gun control is a violation of the US constitution.

2nd through 10, and the most fabulous 14th amendments.

Unfortunately the right to bear arms is a failed concept. The founders had no way of knowing how the economics of weapons would develop. What I mean here is that part of the right to bear arms is to allow citizens the right to forcefully challenge the government. Back in 1788 the army and citizens used the same gear, today there is a massive cost difference. The citizen gets a gun that costs a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars while the military has body armor, better guns, fighters, drones, missiles, cyber weapons, much more control over supply lines, and so on. Even if there were zero restrictions on any weapons a civilian could buy they've been priced out of being a challenge to the government.

a reply to: neo96

Once your gun rights are taken from you, what is stopping the Gov from openly screwing you?

a reply to: Aazadan

Unfortunately the right to bear arms is a failed concept.

Not hardly.

The founders had no way of knowing how the economics of weapons would develop. What I mean here is that part of the right to bear arms is to allow citizens the right to forcefully challenge the government. Back in 1788 the army and citizens used the same gear, today there is a massive cost difference.

Cost difference is meaningless. It's the person behind the equipment that matters.

The citizen gets a gun that costs a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars while the military has body armor, better guns, fighters, drones, missiles, cyber weapons, much more control over supply lines, and so on. Even if there were zero restrictions on any weapons a civilian could buy they've been priced out of being a challenge to the government.

All that you've said is true, as far as it goes. In a straight up shootin' contest, civilians are going to come out on the losing side. No doubt of that.

That's why you cheat. Any sort of rebellion, god forbid, against federal power isn't going to be fought by people fighting fair.

Better guns? Until you kill a few and take theirs, or steal a truckload or two. Fighters? Jets, I assume? So what, gotta know where you are in order to hit you. Drones? Missiles? Same deal. Cyber weapons? Paper and pencil, my friend. Can't eavesdrop on paper and pencil. Can't hack 'em, either. Supply lines are not invulnerable. With proper planning and know how, supply lines become extraordinarily vulnerable. Especially in a big ol' country like this one.

Not saying it would be easy, it wouldn't be. But not impossible, either. Remember, for all the soldiers in uniform now, there's at least one former soldier, probably vastly more experienced, who will line up against him.

Don't fight fair. Pick and choose your fights. You'd be surprised, I think, just how even a tussle it'd turn out to be.