Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 15:44:26 GMT
link
Gail Collins wrote an Op Ed in the New York Times about Trump and the NRA and his speech yesterday. As usual Trump's speech included a lot of bragging this time about him and his gun and what he would do with his gun. Normally I would ignore him and his bragging but a liberal columnist I follow on Twitter posted this Trump tweet "Crooked Hillary wants to get rid of all guns and yet she is surrounded by bodyguards who are fully armed. No more guns to protect Hillary". What Trump neglected to mention in his tweet is the armed bodyguards are Secret Service agents who are known to do what is necessary to protect their protectee. So what he is suggesting is to put these agent's lives in even more danger then they all ready are. Because the Secret Service will protect her guns are no guns. This morning his tweet ticked me of more then some of his other tweets have in the past. So in the true tradition of peas when they want to vent about something I came here to vent. Good news I happened to find a columnist who says what I'm thinking so much better. It's a twofer. A ding against Trump and The NRA. From the article " The entire mythology of the NRA and its supporters is based on the idea that if a person is armed, he or she will be capable of shooting accurately. That the big problem is lack of gun availability, not gun owners who are sloppy, inept, and occasionally psychotic." "If we required that anyone who wants to buy a gun first demonstrate the ability to hit a target, sales would plummet overnight." "I can tell you if I had been in Bataclan or in the cafes, I would have opened fire", Trump told a French magazine" I may have been killed but I would have drawn." "More likely, he'd have hit the waiter. It's very hard to shoot accurately when you're scared or under stress". "However the NRA vision of the world is one where every shot is true. "Americans use guns to defend themselves against violent crimes more than a million times a year" said Trump. This is a fantasy, based on one phone survey conducted in 1992, and frequently debunked". (Link provided for the debunking) "And nobody in the presidential race wants to prevent law-abiding people from keeping their guns in their home. Certainly not Hillary Clinton, who has been known to brag about her previous hunting triumphs. She's probably not very proficient now, but she could probably still beat Trump in a shoot-off."
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on May 21, 2016 16:41:24 GMT
According to his book in 2000 he is in favor of banning assault rifles and having a more extensive background check for owning guns. He's as bad as Hillary at flip flopping or "forgetting" he ever said anything.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 21, 2016 16:49:45 GMT
My head is never, ever going to survive till November. It will explode long before then. sigh
|
|
|
Post by meridon on May 21, 2016 17:48:52 GMT
Maybe the NRA should have a shootout among the candidates to see who gets their endorsement. That wouldn't be any stranger than the debates we had this time around.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 21, 2016 19:49:45 GMT
And nobody in the presidential race wants to prevent law-abiding people from keeping their guns in their home. Certainly not Hillary Clinton, She wants to effectively kill the second amendment. By advocating that gun manufacturers should be sued when there is no material defect in the product means that the logical outcome is that they will stop manufacturing guns in the U.S. The next thing she will do is to put prohibitive restrictions in place that would make it impossible for the manufacturers to export their products to the U.S. Done and done. But being able to sue a manufacturer for a product that is not defective has far-reaching implications. People can die from peanut allergies, I guess the companies that manufacture and package peanut products can now be sued. Car manufacturers could be sued over every fatality that involves a car. The list is endless. Look at the recent knife attack at the shopping mall in Massachusetts. 2 dead and 2 injured. In a Hillary administration, would the knife manufacturer would now be liable for those deaths? You just can't legislate what crazy people will do.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 21:55:20 GMT
And nobody in the presidential race wants to prevent law-abiding people from keeping their guns in their home. Certainly not Hillary Clinton, She wants to effectively kill the second amendment. By advocating that gun manufacturers should be sued when there is no material defect in the product means that the logical outcome is that they will stop manufacturing guns in the U.S. The next thing she will do is to put prohibitive restrictions in place that would make it impossible for the manufacturers to export their products to the U.S. Done and done. But being able to sue a manufacturer for a product that is not defective has far-reaching implications. People can die from peanut allergies, I guess the companies that manufacture and package peanut products can now be sued. Car manufacturers could be sued over every fatality that involves a car. The list is endless. Look at the recent knife attack at the shopping mall in Massachusetts. 2 dead and 2 injured. In a Hillary administration, would the knife manufacturer would now be liable for those deaths? You just can't legislate what crazy people will do. Actually it's a good thing to sue the gun manufacturers. The families of the Sandy Hook victims got the ok to sue the manufacturer of the assault type rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Assault rifles are manufactured for use by the military. The families believe, and rightly so, that even if the assault and assualt type guns are legal, weapons manufactured for military use shouldn't be sold to John Q Public. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it the right thing to do. Someone needs to act like a grown up and if one can't get the lawmakers to do their job by banning the sale of military grade weapons to John Q Public then why not "help" the manufactures make the right business decision not to sell military grade weapons to every Tom, Dick, & Harry. I hope the families succeed with the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 21, 2016 22:24:35 GMT
She wants to effectively kill the second amendment. By advocating that gun manufacturers should be sued when there is no material defect in the product means that the logical outcome is that they will stop manufacturing guns in the U.S. The next thing she will do is to put prohibitive restrictions in place that would make it impossible for the manufacturers to export their products to the U.S. Done and done. But being able to sue a manufacturer for a product that is not defective has far-reaching implications. People can die from peanut allergies, I guess the companies that manufacture and package peanut products can now be sued. Car manufacturers could be sued over every fatality that involves a car. The list is endless. Look at the recent knife attack at the shopping mall in Massachusetts. 2 dead and 2 injured. In a Hillary administration, would the knife manufacturer would now be liable for those deaths? You just can't legislate what crazy people will do. Actually it's a good thing to sue the gun manufacturers. The families of the Sandy Hook victims got the ok to sue the manufacturer of the assault type rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Assault rifles are manufactured for use by the military. The families believe, and rightly so, that even if the assault and assualt type guns are legal, weapons manufactured for military use shouldn't be sold to John Q Public. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it the right thing to do. Someone needs to act like a grown up and if one can't get the lawmakers to do their job by banning the sale of military grade weapons to John Q Public then why not "help" the manufactures make the right business decision not to sell military grade weapons to every Tom, Dick, & Harry. I hope the families succeed with the lawsuit. It appears that we have hit upon another point on which to agree to disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 23:57:12 GMT
Actually it's a good thing to sue the gun manufacturers. The families of the Sandy Hook victims got the ok to sue the manufacturer of the assault type rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Assault rifles are manufactured for use by the military. The families believe, and rightly so, that even if the assault and assualt type guns are legal, weapons manufactured for military use shouldn't be sold to John Q Public. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it the right thing to do. Someone needs to act like a grown up and if one can't get the lawmakers to do their job by banning the sale of military grade weapons to John Q Public then why not "help" the manufactures make the right business decision not to sell military grade weapons to every Tom, Dick, & Harry. I hope the families succeed with the lawsuit. It appears that we have hit upon another point on which to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by cindosha on May 23, 2016 1:19:30 GMT
He's a blowhard and she's a crook. I hate them both!!!
Cindy
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 23, 2016 20:27:42 GMT
New information (to me): I've been doing a little checking and it's true, she is against the second amendment. Seems she made a comment last year that she thought the Heller decision was bad:
In 2014 she said: Being as how we have a slew of background checking laws in place that seem to be getting strengthened, I'd agree with this assessment:
I have to wonder how this position will affect her once commercials start coming out with her recorded voice saying "the Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment."
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
Aug 28, 2015 22:31:17 GMT
|
Post by AmandaA on May 23, 2016 20:35:38 GMT
While I hate to get myself into this discussion... I did find it humorous when I heard on the news yesterday (regarding when/where his comments were made at the NRA deal) that no one was allowed to bring in their personal guns to hear him speak. Nor will they be able to at the RNC this summer if I recall correctly. Sooooo.... Check the second amendment at the door to go hear people b*tch and moan about people trying to step on their second amendment rights. That makes total sense!
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on May 23, 2016 20:52:51 GMT
BeckyTech , I disagree with your contention that being against Heller is being against the 2nd amendment. And as things stand now, the NRA is against every.single.attempt to tighten local gun laws and consider it an assault on the 2nd amendment. Clearly there is some wide-open space lying in between "against the 2nd amendment" and "everyone should own an arsenal and carry at all times and places." And I wish you'd link your sources in your posts.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on May 23, 2016 20:59:24 GMT
BeckyTech , I disagree with your contention that being against Heller is being against the 2nd amendment. And as things stand now, the NRA is against every.single.attempt to tighten local gun laws and consider it an assault on the 2nd amendment. Clearly there is some wide-open space lying in between "against the 2nd amendment" and "everyone should own an arsenal and carry at all times and places." And I wish you'd link your sources in your posts. What she said!
|
|
flute4peace
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,757
Jul 3, 2014 14:38:35 GMT
|
Post by flute4peace on May 23, 2016 21:01:53 GMT
While I hate to get myself into this discussion... I did find it humorous when I heard on the news yesterday (regarding when/where his comments were made at the NRA deal) that no one was allowed to bring in their personal guns to hear him speak. Nor will they be able to at the RNC this summer if I recall correctly. Sooooo.... Check the second amendment at the door to go hear people b*tch and moan about people trying to step on their second amendment rights. That makes total sense! I had a whole paragraph typed out about this but deleted it because I don't want to start a "gate" lol. I do share your feeling of irony.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 23:56:35 GMT
New information (to me): I've been doing a little checking and it's true, she is against the second amendment. Seems she made a comment last year that she thought the Heller decision was bad:
In 2014 she said: Being as how we have a slew of background checking laws in place that seem to be getting strengthened, I'd agree with this assessment:
I have to wonder how this position will affect her once commercials start coming out with her recorded voice saying "the Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment." There is a book called "The Second Amendent a Biography" by Michael Waldman that makes the case in the 70's the NRA set out to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Prior to that it was accepted that only an armed militia had the right to bear arms. Not individuals. Had something to do with at that time the country was being formed there was no standing army just a volunteer militia. This volunteer militia had to provide their own weapons and the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure these individuals were well armed. Not John Q Public. Then in 70's the NRA decided to change the original intent that it was not just members of the militia but all individuals had the right to own guns. They finally succeed when the Supreme Court handed down the Heller decision. Prior to that when the Supreme Court ruled on cases involving gun ownership they never sided with the gun owners to the extend they did with Heller. In fact in the book there is a comment from Chief Justice Warren Burger that the idea of individual gun rights in the Constitution a preposterous "fraud". This is what I was taught when I went to school back in the dark ages so yes I think this guy makes a strong case. As as far as gun laws here Is where I disagree with Clinton. All gun laws should be federal so they would apply equally to every city, county, and state in the country. It's because they are not is the reason the laws can't do what they were intended to do.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 25, 2016 19:53:25 GMT
BeckyTech , I disagree with your contention that being against Heller is being against the 2nd amendment. And as things stand now, the NRA is against every.single.attempt to tighten local gun laws and consider it an assault on the 2nd amendment. Clearly there is some wide-open space lying in between "against the 2nd amendment" and "everyone should own an arsenal and carry at all times and places." And I wish you'd link your sources in your posts. For those playing the home game, the case of D.C. vs. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. According to the SCOTUS blog:
Part of the problem that was brought up in the Heller case is that if a person did own a firearm it had to be unloaded and have a trigger lock on it at all times when in the home. That would clearly render the gun useless for self-protection. (Invader with a gun, sir, please wait while I get the key, unlock my gun, and get a bullet.)
So, by disagreeing with the Heller decision, it would seem to me (and others) that she disagrees with the right of the individual to own firearms. That is the crux of the case (see #1 above). There are plenty of laws, as even brought up in the decision, that limit those rights via background checks, etc. so clearly, not "anybody" can own a gun.
So when Clinton said "the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."" it sounds like it was one of those exaggerated politician's statements because there are an abundance of laws concerning legal acquisition of firearms already, therefore, it was an assault on the second amendment. I hope I'm expressing myself clearly and you can see where that notion that she's against the second amendment comes in when she said she disagrees with the Heller decision.
krazyscrapper, you can see that this decision also addresses the historical intent. (As interpreted by these constitutional legal minds on the Supreme Court.) Because of the wording of the second amendment I can see where a case could be made that it does not infer the rights to individuals.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 20:31:27 GMT
krazyscrapper , you can see that this decision also addresses the historical intent. (As interpreted by these constitutional legal minds on the Supreme Court.) Because of the wording of the second amendment I can see where a case could be made that it does not infer the rights to individuals.
Yes and "constitutional legal minds" for close to 200 years had interrupted the intent of the amendment that individuals did not have the right to own guns. IMO the work of the NRA and Roberts Supreme Court has not made this country safer but instead put the citizens at greater risk.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 25, 2016 21:53:16 GMT
krazyscrapper , you can see that this decision also addresses the historical intent. (As interpreted by these constitutional legal minds on the Supreme Court.) Because of the wording of the second amendment I can see where a case could be made that it does not infer the rights to individuals.
Yes and "constitutional legal minds" for close to 200 years had interrupted the intent of the amendment that individuals did not have the right to own guns. IMO the work of the NRA and Roberts Supreme Court has not made this country safer but instead put the citizens at greater risk. ?? I didn't realize that there ever was a time when an individual didn't have the right to own firearms in the U.S. When was that? I found this history of the NRA and it doesn't mention such a time.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 1, 2024 4:00:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 22:10:39 GMT
Yes and "constitutional legal minds" for close to 200 years had interrupted the intent of the amendment that individuals did not have the right to own guns. IMO the work of the NRA and Roberts Supreme Court has not made this country safer but instead put the citizens at greater risk. ?? I didn't realize that there ever was a time when an individual didn't have the right to own firearms in the U.S. When was that? I found this history of the NRA and it doesn't mention such a time. People could always own guns just like one can own a car or house It was the "right" to own guns that is in question. It's that "supposed" right that the NRA is vigorously protecting that has our gun laws so piecemealed they are hard to enforced and in many cases fail. As intended by the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on May 26, 2016 21:50:56 GMT
?? I didn't realize that there ever was a time when an individual didn't have the right to own firearms in the U.S. When was that? I found this history of the NRA and it doesn't mention such a time. People could always own guns just like one can own a car or house It was the "right" to own guns that is in question. It's that "supposed" right that the NRA is vigorously protecting that has our gun laws so piecemealed they are hard to enforced and in many cases fail. As intended by the NRA. That's a very fine line, but I'm glad the NRA is vigorously protecting the right to own a gun. I don't have one but I think it's an important right.
|
|