The biased Media vs Trump!

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

What exactly is HC proposing that worries the gun people so much?
The same was said about Obama he was going to take away the guns don't think he did anything about guns.

A Hillary Clinton administration would mean much tougher gun laws with some affecting Americans with no criminal records. She would reshape the Supreme Court by appointing justices hostile to Second Amendment freedoms. She would expand background checks for all firearm purchases. She wants to reinstate the national assault weapons ban and prohibit high-capacity magazines. She supports the “no fly, no buy” proposal that would stop anyone on federal terrorist watch lists from buying guns, which we know included mistakes and people merely are on the government’s radar. She legislation that would established a national federal registry for all guns. She is in favor of raising the legal age for all handgun ownership to 21. And her recent leaked emails indicate Hillary Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights.

lee_baby_simms

Amerika wrote: »

A Hillary Clinton administration would mean much tougher gun laws with some affecting Americans with no criminal records. She would reshape the Supreme Court by appointing justices hostile to Second Amendment freedoms. She would expand background checks for all firearm purchases. She wants to reinstate the national assault weapons ban and prohibit high-capacity magazines. She supports the “no fly, no buy” proposal that would stop anyone on federal terrorist watch lists from buying guns, which we know included mistakes and people merely are on the government’s radar. She legislation that would established a national federal registry for all guns. She is in favor of raising the legal age for all handgun ownership to 21. And her recent leaked emails indicate Hillary Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights.

I suspect a lot of people would support these measures given how high powered assault weapons have repeatedly ended up in the wrong hands in recent times.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

We have something like 20,000 different gun laws across the nation comprising federal laws, state laws, and municipal laws. How’s that for a metric?

I do not carry a gun in my car on a regular basis, and I do not have a carry permit, yet (but I will if Hillary becomes president). So in my state if I want to transport a firearm I must put the firearm in one section of the car, preferably the trunk, and carry the ammunition in a completely different part of the car and nowhere near the firearm. But municipalities have gone about creating their own gun laws. If I have a gun in the car and travel through one of these municipalities (nothing is posted, and I am required to know the gun laws of each and every individual municipality) I can be arrested. I work on the border of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If I have a gun in the car and there is an accident on last exit of the PA interstate and am forced to continue into NJ, I can be arrested.

Here are a couple of local stories for your reading enjoyment, and to give credence to that metric...

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/justice-for-brian-aitken/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/17/new-jersey-man-facing-ten-years-in-prison-for-possession-of-300-yr-old-flintlock-pistol/comment-page-1/

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150403_Christie_pardons_Phila__mom_snagged_by_N_J__gun_law.html

Just out of curiosity Amerika why would you need a gun in your car and have you ever been in a position that required you to use it ?

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

She would reshape the Supreme Court by appointing justices hostile to Second Amendment freedoms.

In fairness the democratically-elected President Obama should be appointing the Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia, that's one of the Presidential functions that he was elected for. It is the Republican-controlled Senate who are insisting that the next elected President (Clinton) should make the pick, leaving the court open to troublesome 4-4 splits until that happens.

I get that people are worried about her pick, but for me it shouldn't be hers to make.

Water John

The Republicans have crippled politics at national level in the US. Fear of the Tea Party and the Alt Right means the Rep Party has been effectively largely hijacked.
Poor Abe, listening to that clown now looking for his job.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Just out of curiosity Amerika why would you need a gun in your car and have you ever been in a position that required you to use it ?

Many years ago my life was threatened in a union dispute. I reported the threat to the police and their advice was for me to go out and get a handgun for my own protection, which I did. More recently I work for a firm who believes in giving people a second chance, and hires some people with criminal backgrounds. Although most of them are good people, I’ve found some can turn on a dime, and I have been threatened with violence and death on several occasions. Some of the past employees are currently sitting in jail for battery and armed robberies, so I always take the threats seriously. Whenever a threat is made to me I will carry a gun in the car for several weeks. I also carry a taser at all times in my briefcase, and a can of wasp and hornet spray in the car which is much more effective a deterrent than pepper spray.

Thankfully I was never in a position to have to use a gun. My uncle did once have use his gun in the town next to mine in an armed car-jacking. He fired shots into the ground and thankfully it was enough to send the two criminals running.

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

In fairness the democratically-elected President Obama should be appointing the Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia, that's one of the Presidential functions that he was elected for. It is the Republican-controlled Senate who are insisting that the next elected President (Clinton) should make the pick, leaving the court open to troublesome 4-4 splits until that happens.

I get that people are worried about her pick, but for me it shouldn't be hers to make.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, I suspect judge Merrick Garland will be quickly confirmed to the SCOTUS.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

More recently I work for a firm who believes in giving people a second chance, and hires some people with criminal backgrounds. Although most of them are good people, I’ve found some can turn on a dime, and I have been threatened with violence and death on several occasions.

That's awful, and with gun show loopholes they can probably arm themselves easily from a private seller even with the criminal background

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

That's awful, and with gun show loopholes they can probably arm themselves easily from a private seller even with the criminal background

I have found the types of guns sold by private sellers at gun shows (the 'gun show loophole') are mostly shotguns and hunting rifles - firearms typically not used in crimes. Things like AR-15’s and handguns are rarely if ever sold at gun shows by private people out of fear of repercussions if the gun they sold was used in a crime, as the courts have sometimes made sellers of guns used in a crime to be partially responsible. Criminals usually get their guns illegally off the black market, which gun control laws wouldn’t affect. Again, I will continue to tell everyone who uses the talking point of ‘gun show loophole’ to go to a gun show and see for themselves if they can even find such a seller, and in the rare instance they actually can find one - what type of guns are they selling.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

I have found the types of guns sold by private sellers at gun shows (the 'gun show loophole') are mostly shotguns and hunting rifles - firearms typically not used in crimes. Things like AR-15’s and handguns are rarely if ever sold at gun shows by private people out of fear of repercussions if the gun they sold was used in a crime, as the courts have sometimes made sellers of guns used in a crime to be partially responsible. Criminals usually get their guns illegally off the black market, which gun control laws wouldn’t affect. Again, I will continue to tell everyone who uses the talking point of ‘gun show loophole’ to go to a gun show and see for themselves if they can even find such a seller, and in the rare instance they actually can find one - what type of guns are they selling.

Ah I know it was a tongue-in-cheek comment. :P

I'm in favour of closing the loophole as that's how the law works in my view. I don't personally see it infringing on rights. People talk about gun regulations as if there are none already, there's already plenty of regulation around gun ownership - you can't have a criminal record, you can't have a mental illness, have to be 21 to own a handgun, need a permit for a silencer etc etc.

It's highly regulated already and I would imagine for the most part pro-2nd-amendment supporters understand the reason for some of these already being part of federal law. The "gun-show loophole" is tiny in comparison to some of the existing regulations in terms of impact and I would imagine the only people who support it would support complete deregulation where 10 year olds or criminally insane can buy AK's because they are citizens bounded by the 2nd amendment rights. Which is nonsense. Certain laws exist for a reason and the law works effectively by closing loopholes to retain the integrity of what the laws are set out to achieve. Ignoring loopholes isn't a good approach because when loopholes are discovered, it is human nature to exploit them. It may be that it's widows selling their deceased's hunting rifle today, but no matter what area of the law it is improper to ignore the loophole because tomorrow it will be somebody else doing it for more sinister reasons until it comes to a tipping point.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So you want our politicians to take away citizen's rights because it would be politically advantageous?

If the gun show loophole does not exist, how are a citizens rights being taken away

As for what is and is not a right you can construe anything to be a "right" - the "right to drink and drive," "the right to purchase TNT," "the right to not sit next to negros on the bus," or "the right to obtain lethal weapons without reasonable checks and balances"

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

If the gun show loophole does not exist, how are a citizens rights being taken away

I believe the correct response would be… why then the need to legislate for a myth?

As for what is and is not a right you can construe anything to be a "right" - the "right to drink and drive," "the right to purchase TNT," "the right to not sit next to negros on the bus," or "the right to obtain lethal weapons without reasonable checks and balances"

What in the world are you getting on about? The right in question here is specifically spelled out in the US Constitution.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

A Hillary Clinton administration would mean much tougher gun laws with some affecting Americans with no criminal records. She would reshape the Supreme Court by appointing justices hostile to Second Amendment freedoms. She would expand background checks for all firearm purchases. She wants to reinstate the national assault weapons ban and prohibit high-capacity magazines. She supports the “no fly, no buy” proposal that would stop anyone on federal terrorist watch lists from buying guns, which we know included mistakes and people merely are on the government’s radar. She legislation that would established a national federal registry for all guns. She is in favor of raising the legal age for all handgun ownership to 21. And her recent leaked emails indicate Hillary Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights.

Ok, let me get this right, you are for an Islamic terrorists right, even if on a FBI watch list, to own a gun.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I believe the correct response would be… why then the need to legislate for a myth?

that seems to be your entire reasoning behind supporting voter suppression law?

What in the world are you getting on about? The right in question here is specifically spelled out in the US Constitution.

yes, for a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Trent Houseboat

The biased media are currently giving him free promotion for one of his hotels again.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

that seems to be your entire reasoning behind supporting voter suppression law?

... says the person who wants people to produce ID in order to purchase a firearm, but not to vote?

yes, for a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state.

Why do you always ignore the SCOTUS ruling on United States v. Emerson (2001)?

the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

Why do you always ignore the SCOTUS ruling on United States v. Emerson (2001)?

the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.

Do you believe that that statement should stand to all individuals without exclusions or should there be additional regulation on top of it?

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

We have something like 20,000 different gun laws across the nation comprising federal laws, state laws, and municipal laws. How’s that for a metric?

And? A firearm is a very dangerous thing and the NRA has fought tooth and nail to stop any legislation which might keep them away from irresponsible people and worse. Frankly, this sounds like the best that could be done without upsetting the second amendment moaners.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

... says the person who wants people to produce ID in order to purchase a firearm, but not to vote?


Why do you always ignore the SCOTUS ruling on United States v. Emerson (2001)?

the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.

That quote doesn't address the issue of regulation.

Amerika

8-10 wrote: »

Do you believe that that statement should stand to all individuals without exclusions or should there be additional regulation on top of it?

Of course not. People such as criminals and the mentally ill shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

Of course not. People such as criminals and the mentally ill shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

So should all sales have background checks then? Or how would you determine that?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

That quote doesn't address the issue of regulation.

You were the one who keyed in on the 'well-regulated militia.' Just wanted to clarify things in respect to 2A.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Of course not. People such as criminals and the mentally ill shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

So without regulations on the sale of guns how do you screen that I wonder

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Of course not. People such as criminals and the mentally ill shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

But people on an FBI terrorist watch list should?

I'd have never put you down as a liberal Amerika.

ebbsy

Trump 2 points ahead in Florida in a Cnn poll.....

I think he is going to win by a fair margin.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And? A firearm is a very dangerous thing and the NRA has fought tooth and nail to stop any legislation which might keep them away from irresponsible people and worse. Frankly, this sounds like the best that could be done without upsetting the second amendment moaners.

Why don't we take a visit to the NRA, and get it right from the horse's mouth, and see what they're all about...

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

Why don't we take a visit to the NRA, and get it right from the horse's mouth, and see what they're all about...

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

What's this supposed to prove, exactly?

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's this supposed to prove, exactly?

That they’re not what the majority of people here portray them to be... Evil second amendment moaners who’s main focus is to put guns into the hands of irresponsible people and worse.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

That they’re not what the majority of people here portray them to be... Evil second amendment moaners who’s main focus is into put guns in the hands of responsible people and worse.

So you're walking away from the loophole issue to defend a man of straw. Brilliant.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

But people on an FBI terrorist watch list should?

I'd have never put you down as a liberal Amerika.

Good one. Nice to know some mods here have a sense of humor and have an appreciation for appropriate sarcasm.

People legitimately on the FBI terrorist watch list should also be excluded from owning guns, and even more... like, but not limited to, people convicted of the crime of domestic violence, illegal aliens, those who have renounced US citizenship, progressives, and politics moderators at boards.ie. :P