Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 15:19:05 GMT
Sorry but this is paranoia at its best. Paranoia? Why? Because I can weigh Hillary's words and see where her ideas might lead? How is it any more paranoid than looking at what Trump says and seeing possible violence against Hillary? People are looking at what he said about her security detail laying down their weapons and making that conclusion. I don't think they're paranoid to do so. I think everyone should have the right to draw their own conclusions without being told they're paranoid.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 15:21:54 GMT
It would be so much better if he could eloquently state that just like you did here. Instead we get to hear him say whatever randomness pops into his head, and it either makes very little sense, or it makes sense but is also wide open for interpretation, esp by those looking for an excuse to engage in violence. Does he not have speech writers? I think this is a good question. Does he do it purposefully or is he so used to just saying whatever comes to mind without censoring it because he's been the Donald for so long? Sometimes I think it's a little of both. But dang, he just needs to shut up sometimes. Most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 17, 2016 15:29:16 GMT
Sorry but this is paranoia at its best. Paranoia? Why? Because I can weigh Hillary's words and see where her ideas might lead? How is it any more paranoid than looking at what Trump says and seeing possible violence against Hillary? People are looking at what he said about her security detail laying down their weapons and making that conclusion. I don't think they're paranoid to do so. I think everyone should have the right to draw their own conclusions without being told they're paranoid. Trumps campaign is banking on people being fearful and paranoid for him to get votes, because he's got nothing else but lies and absolutely no plan.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 15:37:26 GMT
We have laws, regulations and fees that make owning a car too expensive for some. Why? To protect the people of this country. How much does a background check cost? And how does that relate to the cost of a gun? I had to do one to be a volunteer at school and it was $15. It is ridiculous that someone who wants to own a gun does not need to do the same. Reasonable people recognize that we have a gun problem in this country and something needs to change. Does that mean"taking all the guns away"? No. And Hillary Clinton has never said that. In the past Hillary has supported huge sales taxes on guns, making them more expensive. So what would the result be, do you think? Would more law-abiding citizens be able to exercise their right or fewer? I think it would place an undue burden on poor people who might feel they ned a gun for protection, especially in rural areas. As far as I know, she has not come out and said if she still would support high taxes on guns, but it's reasonable to conclude that she would. As far as "taking all the guns away," I don't believe she'd ever come out and say that. No politician hoping to get elected would. But it is possible to look at her words, both in this campaign and in the past, and draw conclusions about what she hopes to accomplish in relation to the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Sept 17, 2016 15:42:14 GMT
People screamed that Obama was going to take them away too. It's been eight years and y'all still have your guns. When are you going to stop buying into the nonsense that the NRA is feeding you?
ETA: and I come from a family of avid gun owners. My grandfather was a professional trap shooter, all my brothers are former military and hunt regularly and have many guns.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 17, 2016 16:04:38 GMT
But none of that is "taking your guns away." None of that is stating that people don't have a right to defend themselves. And nowhere in the second amendment does it say that you have a right to own any weapon of your choice with no regulations whatsoever. You might want it to, up it doesn't. If you and others are worried about a "slippery slope," well, that is on YOU. It isn't what Hillary is wanting or planning on doing. It is about YOU and YOUR fears, which Trump and the NRA have played on. Not about anything Hillary has actually said. The "slippery slope argument" is a tactic for instilling fear when the targeted person/argument doesn't actually say anything offensive - like sensible gun control. Yes, some of that is taking guns away. Hillary has stated that the Supreme Court got it wrong on the Heller decision and that if elected she would make that case over and over again. The Heller decision overturned the ban on guns in DC but still gave states and cities the right to impose sensible restrictions. What did the Supreme Court get wrong then? That gun bans were unconstitutional? It's not paranoia, it's not fear tactics to look at what she says and weigh the possible outcomes. There's no way Hillary would be able to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most reasonable people know this. But placing so many restrictions on the Amendment that it takes away the ability of self-defense effectively makes the 2A void. It's not paranoia to recognize that fact, no matter how many times you say it is. Forbes article on Hillary's response to HellerThat is an opinion piece and according to Forbes is his own OPINION, not Forbes'. Your argument is akin to saying that you are for mass shootings at movie theaters and elementary schools, because it is a slippery slope from wanting unregistered easy access to guns to having mass shootings happen because mentally ill and terrorists can easily obtain numerous firearms. Some of wanting no sensible gun control is supporting mass shootings of children. It's not paranoia to recognize that fact. Yeah, it feels disgusting and offensive when someone does it to you. And my claims are just as valid as Trumps, yours, and the NRA's are about Hillary's stances.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 16:37:26 GMT
That is an opinion piece and according to Forbes is his own OPINION, not Forbes'. Your argument is akin to saying that you are for mass shootings at movie theaters and elementary schools, because it is a slippery slope from wanting unregistered easy access to guns to having mass shootings happen because mentally ill and terrorists can easily obtain numerous firearms. Some of wanting no sensible gun control is supporting mass shootings of children. It's not paranoia to recognize that fact. Yeah, it feels disgusting and offensive when someone does it to you. And my claims are just as valid as Trumps, yours, and the NRA's are about Hillary's stances. elaine, seriously I wonder how you leap to the conclusions you do. Because some people's ideas about common sense gun regulations are different from your opinion, you accuse them (or me, since I'm the one discussing this with you) of supporting gun violence like mass shootings against children? Did you even ask what I felt was sensible gun control? Do you even know if I've been personally affected by gun violence before you started accusing me of wanting easy, unregistered access to guns? I have a difference of opinion about Hillary's stance on gun control. I'm sorry that's not allowed here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 16:54:02 GMT
Sorry but this is paranoia at its best. Paranoia? Why? Because I can weigh Hillary's words and see where her ideas might lead? How is it any more paranoid than looking at what Trump says and seeing possible violence against Hillary? People are looking at what he said about her security detail laying down their weapons and making that conclusion. I don't think they're paranoid to do so. I think everyone should have the right to draw their own conclusions without being told they're paranoid. link
There is no evidence that common sense gun laws will generate fees that would prohibit potential gun owners from owning guns. That is just hysteria. One of the common sense gun laws I'm pretty sure Hillary will be going after is denying those on the government terrorist list and no fly list to buy guns. I certainly don't have a problem with that. That is just common sense you don't let potential terrorist buy guns. As to Heller. Interesting thing about Heller and the 2nd amendment. For almost 200 years the belief was the 2nd amendment did not give individuals the right to own guns. Then in the 1970s activist members of the NRA took over the organization and steadily change the original purpose of the NRA to changing the intent of the 2nd amendment. The Heller decision was icing on the cake for the NRA. Funny thing about the Supreme Court. Prior to that they always ruled against individual gun rights. The link is an article on Heller showing the intent of the decision, a little history of prior decisions, and the flaws in the decision. The NRA wants you to believe that for almost 200 years the admendment was misunderstood and they knew the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. When in fact all they did was cause a big mess. If you check the history of the 2nd amendment you will find what I said is pretty much the way it was. Hillary and I are about the same age which means we were both taught in school the 2nd amendment did not give individuals the right to own guns. Knowing that the intent was changed by a few who wanted it to fit their beliefs and not those of the original writers of the 2nd amendment. The reality is that genie can't be put back in the bottle so it's now finding ways to live with what the NRA did along with the help of the John Roberts court to cut down the deaths of innocent people.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 17, 2016 17:13:59 GMT
@nicksmom , I think Elaine and I are having the same "Yeah, but..." response to your argument, but we'll express it differently:
The thing about the slippery slope argument that always perplexes me is WHEN does the road start to slope? We already have some measure of gun control; why is that not considered slippery? And why are all of one nominee's ideas considered so slippery that it's clear she has ulterior motives?
So I, too, struggle with this idea that more control will easily lead to guns being confiscated...and wonder why people positing the "slippery" argument are not advocating unfettered access. Does that make sense?
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 17, 2016 17:17:21 GMT
Hillary and I are about the same age which means we were both taught in school the 2nd amendment did not give individuals the right to own guns. Knowing that the intent was changed by a few who wanted it to fit their beliefs and not those of the original writers of the 2nd amendment. The reality is that genie can't be put back in the bottle so it's now finding ways to live with what the NRA did along with the help of the John Roberts court to cut down the deaths of innocent people. I'm being completely honest: I never had any idea how differently people thought about the second amendment until I started hanging out here. Well, I knew differences in interpretation existed - and had greatly changed during my lifetime - but didn't know how widespread and prevalent it was (the thinking that differed from mine).
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 17, 2016 17:19:59 GMT
That is an opinion piece and according to Forbes is his own OPINION, not Forbes'. Your argument is akin to saying that you are for mass shootings at movie theaters and elementary schools, because it is a slippery slope from wanting unregistered easy access to guns to having mass shootings happen because mentally ill and terrorists can easily obtain numerous firearms. Some of wanting no sensible gun control is supporting mass shootings of children. It's not paranoia to recognize that fact. Yeah, it feels disgusting and offensive when someone does it to you. And my claims are just as valid as Trumps, yours, and the NRA's are about Hillary's stances. elaine, seriously I wonder how you leap to the conclusions you do. Because some people's ideas about common sense gun regulations are different from your opinion, you accuse them (or me, since I'm the one discussing this with you) of supporting gun violence like mass shootings against children? Did you even ask what I felt was sensible gun control? Do you even know if I've been personally affected by gun violence before you started accusing me of wanting easy, unregistered access to guns? I have a difference of opinion about Hillary's stance on gun control. I'm sorry that's not allowed here. The leaps I stated are the equal to the leaps you, Trump and the NRA make about Hillary. I thought that was obvious. And I also didn't say that I believed the leaps, even though you believe the leaps others make about Hillary. I just stated the equivalent and you, as predicted, found it as objectionable as others find your and Trump's leaps about Hillary's stance to be. Your "opinion" isn't based on anything that Hillary has actually said or done, just long leaps that you and Trump make. I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to point that out here. Hillary advocates sensible gun control, if you are against her stance on guns, you are against those things.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 17, 2016 17:20:25 GMT
That is an opinion piece and according to Forbes is his own OPINION, not Forbes'. Your argument is akin to saying that you are for mass shootings at movie theaters and elementary schools, because it is a slippery slope from wanting unregistered easy access to guns to having mass shootings happen because mentally ill and terrorists can easily obtain numerous firearms. Some of wanting no sensible gun control is supporting mass shootings of children. It's not paranoia to recognize that fact. Yeah, it feels disgusting and offensive when someone does it to you. And my claims are just as valid as Trumps, yours, and the NRA's are about Hillary's stances. elaine, seriously I wonder how you leap to the conclusions you do. Because some people's ideas about common sense gun regulations are different from your opinion, you accuse them (or me, since I'm the one discussing this with you) of supporting gun violence like mass shootings against children? Did you even ask what I felt was sensible gun control? Do you even know if I've been personally affected by gun violence before you started accusing me of wanting easy, unregistered access to guns? I have a difference of opinion about Hillary's stance on gun control. I'm sorry that's not allowed here. It's not really "a leap" anymore. It's becoming increasingly true almost daily that there is a great need for better gun control, and if there is even a tiny bit of talk about doing so, you have those who scream "Second Amendments rights are being taken away" and a very powerful NRA who "pays for play" with congress members to keep the status quo. This just happened. www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/us/philadelphia-gunman-shot-dead/index.htmlRemind me again why better gun control is not needed? Please?
|
|
|
Post by silverlining on Sept 17, 2016 17:26:17 GMT
For me, this is much more than his opinions about gun control..It's about JUDGEMENT. It's about the importance of knowing the power of your words and thoughtfully considering the impact of what you say. I see this as a minimal requirement for a world leader. Let's imagine that he was intending to say something like "Candidates are entitled to protection. I want to make sure ordinary citizens have the same rights. Hillary Clinton wants to bla bla bla" There are hundreds of ways to make that argument without suggesting that only she be without protection and asking people to visualize what could happen. That's dangerous speech, and shows a complete lack of judgement.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:30:15 GMT
That was an interesting article, krazyscrapper. Thanks for sharing it. But I did want to say that you might be mistaken in your comment that for 200 years, the 2nd Amendment was never interpreted to mean individual gun ownership rights. According to this article in The Atlantic, the writers of the 14 Amendment specifically mentioned gun ownership as a right given to freed blacks. I read this article a while back, but just found it again to go along with our discussion. I found it so interesting that previous attempts at gun control were a means to keep black people from exercising their freedoms, and that the Black Panthers were given credit with starting the modern gun rights movement. I think it goes to show that differences in how the 2nd Amendment have been interpreted are not just modern 20th century differences. I also don't agree that what you label common sense gun regulations won't lead to higher costs for potential gun owners, nor is it hysteria to think so. Legislation has been proposed to tax both guns and ammo as a way to keep them out of the hands of citizens. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Hillary has supported a high tax on the sale of guns in the past. She has not given any indication that she's changed her mind about that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:34:55 GMT
He's too effing reckless with his words.....seriously. It's really becoming absurd.
The HRC haters will be the first ones who will go on and on and on about the "optics" of what a 68 year old woman with pneumonia and a stumble says, yet they will continue to defend with their hatred of her the actual words of the POS candidate they support and whose has their vote.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:46:17 GMT
@nicksmom , I think Elaine and I are having the same "Yeah, but..." response to your argument, but we'll express it differently: The thing about the slippery slope argument that always perplexes me is WHEN does the road start to slope? We already have some measure of gun control; why is that not considered slippery? And why are all of one nominee's ideas considered so slippery that it's clear she has ulterior motives? So I, too, struggle with this idea that more control will easily lead to guns being confiscated...and wonder why people positing the "slippery" argument are not advocating unfettered access. Does that make sense? The slippery slope argument I was talking about wasn't necessarily gun confiscation. Unless it's voluntary, I don't think it would ever work without a whole lot of people ending up dead, and no government wants that. Nor do I think the 2nd Amendment will be abolished. But I do think many of Hillary's ideas could lead to restrictions that essentially make the right to gun ownership meaningless = slippery slope. With punitive taxation, who could afford a gun? Taxing ammo would make a gun worthless. I even have reservations about the no-fly list being used as a reason to restrict gun ownership, and the ACLU agrees with me on that because the list is so arbitrary and full of mistakes. I don't believe gun manufacturers should be criminally or civilly liable for gun deaths. In most cases, I don't think gun owners whose weapons have been stolen should be liable for crimes committed with the stolen weapons. I think we should devote more resources to mental health. I think background checks and waiting periods are a good idea. Most states have already enacted such legislation and that is supported by a large percentage of gun owners. Has that made it more clear? I'm sorry the slippery slope comment was confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Belia on Sept 17, 2016 17:47:02 GMT
I think the point he was trying to make is that politicians who want to take away your right to protect yourself depend on guns to protect themselves. They deserve protection while the average citizen does not. Like the old Animal Farm adage: All are equal, some are more equal than others. Just so you know, I'm not advocating Hillary give up her armed guard. I understand the need for her and other candidates to be protected. But she has to understand that her fellow Americans also have the right to protect themselves. But we ARE protected by folks who have guns. Law enforcement, the military. All professionals who carry guns whose job is to protect you and me. Hillary Clinton (and Donald Trump) have a more intense level of professional protection, because they have a higher profile. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe that's the embodiment of Orwell's "All are equal, some are more equal than others," and therefore a bad thing. Maybe. I mean, on its surface, I guess. But to me it just seems like reality, and common sense.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 17:56:12 GMT
But we ARE protected by folks who have guns. Law enforcement, the military. All professionals who carry guns whose job is to protect you and me. Hillary Clinton (and Donald Trump) have a more intense level of professional protection, because they have a higher profile. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe that's the embodiment of Orwell's "All are equal, some are more equal than others," and therefore a bad thing. Maybe. I mean, on its surface, I guess. But to me it just seems like reality, and common sense. Some people have easy access to police protection, others do not because of where they live. Waiting for the police to arrive in an emergency could be the difference between life and death. In my community, the police are struggling with covering all shifts because of budget constraints so even those who live in the city limits face long wait times before police can respond. If they can't get to me within minutes, I'd like the option to protect myself and my family.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 17, 2016 18:13:39 GMT
Has that made it more clear? I'm sorry the slippery slope comment was confusing. Yes, thank you. I understand that there are plenty of people like you who have researched proposals and formed opinions thoughtfully; I get frustrated by by those who just seem so reactionary that they oppose any proposals out of hand. I'm afraid the "slippery slope" argument always makes me twitchy because it's so often accompanied by dire warnings that [Obama] [Clinton] is going to come "take away your guns." It's like the argument has been poisoned by those who argue it without due diligence. Me, I need to apply more diligence to researching Ms. Clinton's proposal about spearheading a congressional repeal of that law you mention that prevents victims/families from suing gun manufacturers. Some people are acting like it's preposterous. But I know that 31 senators, including HRC and two Republicans, voted against enacting the law ten years ago. I need to know more about that. [Won't change my mind abut my vote, of course. There will never be a nominee with whom I always agree. Probably not even if the nominee were ME. (God help us... )]
|
|
|
Post by Belia on Sept 17, 2016 18:26:26 GMT
But we ARE protected by folks who have guns. Law enforcement, the military. All professionals who carry guns whose job is to protect you and me. Hillary Clinton (and Donald Trump) have a more intense level of professional protection, because they have a higher profile. I don't have a problem with that. Maybe that's the embodiment of Orwell's "All are equal, some are more equal than others," and therefore a bad thing. Maybe. I mean, on its surface, I guess. But to me it just seems like reality, and common sense. Some people have easy access to police protection, others do not because of where they live. Waiting for the police to arrive in an emergency could be the difference between life and death. In my community, the police are struggling with covering all shifts because of budget constraints so even those who live in the city limits face long wait times before police can respond. If they can't get to me within minutes, I'd like the option to protect myself and my family. Then, to me, that's where you work on improving and increasing your community's emergency services so that they meet your community's needs. You don't expect or require or encourage the (untrained, unprofessional) citizenry to arm themselves.
|
|
|
Post by lovetodigi on Sept 17, 2016 18:49:49 GMT
People screamed that Obama was going to take them away too. It's been eight years and y'all still have your guns. When are you going to stop buying into the nonsense that the NRA is feeding you? Not only has Obama not taken guns away, but he has expanded the areas that guns can be carried to include national parks. NRA sneezes and everyone buys tissue. The only real winner is the NRA. They do not care about their members, just the dollar. It is all about the money and anytime they can induce fear it equals more money.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Sept 17, 2016 18:59:17 GMT
I'm genuinely curious how citizens in other parts of the world manage to live full, productive and safe lives without being armed to the teeth like the U.S.
ETA: and if they are, then what are they doing differently that you don't hear about a mass shooting every other week?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 19:04:54 GMT
Trump is reckless with his words and actions. And he keeps getting away with it. Nothing Hillary has said would suggest she is going to take your guns away one way or the other. Nor that people can't protect themselves. What she is saying is not everyone is qualified to have guns and manufactures don't need to sell every type of gun made to the general public. But to hear Trump say it she personally is going door to door to get your guns. Look at the big birther statement. He claims Hillary started it and he ended it. Which is not true. Hillary didn't start it and he didn't end it. Even after President Obama released his long form in 2011 Trump was still going on that he heard from "creditable" source the birth certificate was false over a year after the long form certificate was released. And he has never really given it up but it's all Hillary's fault. And lets not forget the great Trump family leave plan where he stood there and claimed Hillary didn't have a plan and would never have a plan. When in fact she had one from the very beginning. She is a Democrats and all Democrats have some sort of family leave plan that's one of our meat and potatoes issues. Just like cuting the wealthys taxes is the Republicans meat and potatoe issue. But it got even better when Ivanka was giving an interview to Cosmopolitan Magazine and the interviewer starting comparing Hillary's plan to Trump's. In the comparison the interviewer was making it became clear the Clinton plan was better because it included the father for one thing. When asked about that Ivanka started the spiel that the plan was geared toward the mother so the interviewer pushed her on it and she ended the interview. Just like Trump wouldn't take questions after his birther statement even though it had been billed as a press conference. Instead he want the press to follow him atound and take footage of his new hotel. I don't particularly care Trump "tricked" the press into coming to his non press conference so he could get free publicity for the new hotel. But it just shows Trump is always going to look out after his business interest and that won't change if he is elected president.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 17, 2016 19:09:04 GMT
People screamed that Obama was going to take them away too. It's been eight years and y'all still have your guns. When are you going to stop buying into the nonsense that the NRA is feeding you? Not only has Obama not taken guns away, but he has expanded the areas that guns can be carried to include national parks. NRA sneezes and everyone buys tissue. The only real winner is the NRA. They do not care about their members, just the dollar. It is all about the money and anytime they can induce fear it equals more money. Yes! Plus given the FACT that the NRA buys congressmen, taking guns away completely is not likely to ever happen. Congress blocked most/all of what President Obama tried to implement and during times where people who were legally able to have guns did not secure them as they should have to prevent mass shootings (Newtown) or a psychopath was able to get the (Colorado) so instead of doing something--ANYTHING to even TRY to make it better, those who are concerned about the scare tactics the NRA and far extreme scream that their rights are being taken away. For those, there is not one iota of compromise or plan to make it better. So to me, that equates to those people don't give a shit about lives of little kids being lost, random shootings of innocent adults, assaults on LEO...etc., because they are not willing to change.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Sept 17, 2016 19:36:45 GMT
I think the point he was trying to make is that politicians who want to take away your right to protect yourself depend on guns to protect themselves. They deserve protection while the average citizen does not. Like the old Animal Farm adage: All are equal, some are more equal than others. Just so you know, I'm not advocating Hillary give up her armed guard. I understand the need for her and other candidates to be protected. But she has to understand that her fellow Americans also have the right to protect themselves. The problem is she has never said that people don't have a right to protect themselves. She is advocating common sense gun control.
As I type this I'm listening to the radio and Trump was on saying she wants to take your guns away. In other words he is lying yet again.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Sept 17, 2016 23:47:14 GMT
I keep thinking he's actually a huge Hillary supporter and just wants to guarantee she becomes president by running against her. No explanation for the crazy that comes out of his mouth. I'm usually 100% republican....not this year. You know I thought that for awhile ... but now I think he is just an egomaniac. Ugh!
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Sept 18, 2016 0:59:00 GMT
Hillary and I are about the same age which means we were both taught in school the 2nd amendment did not give individuals the right to own guns. Knowing that the intent was changed by a few who wanted it to fit their beliefs and not those of the original writers of the 2nd amendment. The reality is that genie can't be put back in the bottle so it's now finding ways to live with what the NRA did along with the help of the John Roberts court to cut down the deaths of innocent people. I'm being completely honest: I never had any idea how differently people thought about the second amendment until I started hanging out here. Well, I knew differences in interpretation existed - and had greatly changed during my lifetime - but didn't know how widespread and prevalent it was (the thinking that differed from mine). I feel the same way. Things have changed so much since I was young. Back when I was growing up, there was hardly a truck on the road that didn't have gun racks, and more often than not, a gun of some sort in the rack-even our high school parking lot. Rarely did anyone raise their eyebrows. I grew up in an environment where I was around a lot of hunters (still am really) and the difference in conversations among gun owners between then and now are like night and day. I don't recall any one ever talking about their second amendment rights, or being worried about the government taking their guns away (beyond the odd ball who was just paranoid about the 'government' in general.) I will admit...(and this may surprise people who want to slot me in the liberal all way slot) but I do fall on the side of the pro-gun movement. I would like to see some tightening up on the laws we have in place, and change a few rules on how we allow gun purchases now, but I do think that in the event I decide to buy a gun, I am not prohibited from doing so. Then again, I am also not convinced that the changes would be the beginning of a giant slippery slope aimed at taking away my rights to ownership.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 18, 2016 2:15:21 GMT
Now the NRA is continuing with the lie (TV commercial). The spot says "don't let Hillary leave you with just a phone for protection "
Asshats. Big lying ones.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 22:13:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2016 2:19:49 GMT
I guess I have missed the part in the 2nd amendment that states that gun ownership/ammo/licenses, etc. should be made affordable to all citizens. What's the cap? Maybe I need to do some research and polish up on my 2nd amendment knowledge.
Truly, this argument makes no sense to me. Someone's "right" to be able to easily afford guns and ammo should never trump my child's ability to survive her day at kindergarten.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 18, 2016 2:21:31 GMT
Now the NRA is continuing with the lie (TV commercial). The spot says "don't let Hillary leave you with just a phone for protection " Asshats. Big lying ones. I just saw that lying sack of sh7t commercial by the NRA in the middle of my football game. I wanted to post it here, so people could see the NRA at its cowardly lying best, but it isn't on YouTube yet. The NRA are cowards. They can't handle the truth, or the ramifications of actually sticking to it. Heaven forbid they argue actual facts - clearly they think they would lose. So they lie like your 5 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar and crumbs on his face.
|
|