Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2016, 12:53:01 PM
-
Listen to her carefully worded answer, when asked twice whether there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun: "If it is a Constitutional right . . . ."
-
Liberal thinking on gun rights is sickening:
"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record."
-
There is still some issue as to whether the second amendment states that its okay for regular citizens to own guns...it does say "in a well-regulated militia"
-
There is still some issue as to whether the second amendment states that its okay for regular citizens to own guns...it does say "in a well-regulated militia"
No there is not - the SC decided in Heller that it is a inidividual right the same as the 1, 4, 5, 6, etc
Stop being so dumb
-
There is still some issue as to whether the second amendment states that its okay for regular citizens to own guns...it does say "in a well-regulated militia"
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
-
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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 read that to mean that a well regulated militia under some form of government supervision can possess guns....the founding fathers never foresaw assault rifles
-
I read that to mean that a well regulated militia under some form of government supervision can possess guns....the founding fathers never foresaw assault rifles
What you think you read means nothing - the SC already ruled on this
-
I read that to mean that a well regulated militia under some form of government supervision can possess guns....the founding fathers never foresaw assault rifles
Really? Then why did they specifically say the right to bear arms? Could have just said muskets
-
Really? Then why did they specifically say the right to bear arms? Could have just said muskets
by your reasoning I can have an attack helicopter fully loaded with rounds....or hand held guided missile
-
Listen to her carefully worded answer, when asked twice whether there is a Second Amendment right to own a gun: "If it is a Constitutional right . . . ."
Hey Bum, why did you leave off the rest of the quote
"If it is a Constitutional right then it like every other Constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulations"
the words "well regulated" are right there in the second amendment
-
I read that to mean that a well regulated militia under some form of government supervision can possess guns....the founding fathers never foresaw assault rifles
The founding fathers never foresaw the Internet either that would let millions of people be exposed to hateful and ignorant things...why not add more restrictions to the first amendment?
-
This man was radicalized over the Internet Andre, why are you ok with ignorant shit being put on the internet that weak minded individuals eat up like gospel?
Are you for restricting that as well?
-
Hey Bum, why did you leave off the rest of the quote
"If it is a Constitutional right then it like every other Constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulations"
the words "well regulated" are right there in the second amendment
Bc that's not the point of the thread straw, the point is to show that Hillary won't even admit that we have a right to bear arms even though the Supreme Court says we do!!!
-
Bc that's not the point of the thread straw, the point is to show that Hillary won't even admit that we have a right to bear arms even though the Supreme Court says we do!!!
great point
let's remove the context of her statement and then have a discussion about what's left
-
great point
let's remove the context of her statement and then have a discussion about what's left
The context of her statement is that she doesn't agree that we have an individual right to own a gun, the caveat to that statement is that if we do bullshit.
-
The context of her statement is that she doesn't agree that we have an individual right to own a gun, the caveat to that statement is that if we do bullshit.
Exactly.
-
The context of her statement is that she doesn't agree that we have an individual right to own a gun, the caveat to that statement is that if we do bullshit.
Bullshit
She's been quoted in the past saying she believes in second amendment
I see you and Bum are hanging your entire premise of the word "IF" in her statement and if you choose to believe that means she doesn't support the 2nd amendment that is your choice
It's the same tired old script your side runs every election cycle
Here's a quote from Hillary in a Democratic debate from 2008 and I'm sure she say the same thing again but it won't really matter because your side will continue to just selectively choose that parts that you want to hear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html
You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.
btw - this is just the first one I've found. I'm sure there are others as well but I doubt it would matter. Your side has a narrative to sell
-
Bullshit
She's been quoted in the past saying she believes in second amendment
I see you and Bum are hanging your entire premise of the word "IF" in her statement and if you choose to believe that means she doesn't support the 2nd amendment that is your choice
It's the same tired old script your side runs every election cycle
Here's a quote from Hillary in a Democratic debate from 2008 and I'm sure she say the same thing again but it won't really matter because your side will continue to just selectively choose that parts that you want to hear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html
btw - this is just the first one I've found. I'm sure there are others as well but I doubt it would matter. Your side has a narrative to sell
The question wasn't whether she believed in the second amendment straw, it was does she believe the second amendment applies to individuals...
There is a difference and that's why she didn't answer the question
-
The question wasn't whether she believed in the second amendment straw, it was does she believe the second amendment applies to individuals...
There is a difference and that's why she didn't answer the question
She doesn't believe in the Second Amendment. But at the same time, she wants to give herself room to say she never say it isn't a fundamental right. This is partly why people don't like politicians.
I'd actually have some respect for her if she just came out and said what she believes.
-
by your reasoning I can have an attack helicopter fully loaded with rounds....or hand held guided missile
Why not? If you can afford and maintain it. why anyone would want such things, I have no idea
-
Why not? If you can afford and maintain it. why anyone would want such things, I have no idea
you can't think of any ideas on why someone would want that?
I can think of a few
let's start with the argument that the Cliven Bundy types will give you that they need to protect themselves against a tyrannical government or the more common argument that they need it for self defense against criminals
-
I'd actually have some respect for her if she just came out and said what she believes.
I completely agree, I think Bernie is pretty damn crazy fiscally but At least he is honest
-
The question wasn't whether she believed in the second amendment straw, it was does she believe the second amendment applies to individuals...
There is a difference and that's why she didn't answer the question
LOL - who else would it apply to if not individuals
BTW - I'm not fan of the way she or any other politician parses their words because it creates opportunities for others to then re-frame what they said (just like in this case) to suit their own agenda
I also see no reason to not say radical islam or radical islamic terrorist just like I see no reason not to say radical christian or radical christian terrorist (in the example of someone who uses their personal christian beliefs to justify violence)
lets call things what they are and stop trying to dance around shit in an attempt to not offend anyone (or to please everyone)
-
LOL - who else would it apply to if not individuals
BTW - I'm not fan of the way she or any other politician parses their words because it creates opportunities for others to then re-frame what they said (just like in this case) to suit their own agenda
I also see no reason to not say radical islam or radical islamic terrorist just like I see no reason not to say radical christian or radical christian terrorist (in the example of someone who uses their personal christian beliefs to justify violence)
lets call things what they are and stop trying to dance around shit in an attempt to not offend anyone (or to please everyone)
The difference is whether it applies to an individual on a member of a militia straw.
If she didn't distinguish between the two and saw no difference the. Why would she begin her caveat with an "if"?
-
This man was radicalized over the Internet Andre, why are you ok with ignorant shit being put on the internet that weak minded individuals eat up like gospel?
Are you for restricting that as well?
I'm not ok with that at all...but the free speech guarantee in the constitution is clear....owning killing machines is not for the sake of having the right to bear arms is not
-
I'm not ok with that at all...but the free speech guarantee in the constitution is clear....owning killing machines is not for the sake of having the right to bear arms is not
Haha so you agree the reason he shot people is that he was radicalized over the Internet and you think the solution is to remove guns and not the thing that radicalized him?
By the way the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear, individuals have a right to own guns.
-
I'm not ok with that at all...but the free speech guarantee in the constitution is clear....owning killing machines is not for the sake of having the right to bear arms is not
Plenty of restrictions have been placed on the first amendment, why are you against prohibiting speech that radicalizes people?
-
people on the no-fly and terror-watch list can currently walk into a gun store and order a case of AR-15s.
Think about that. Dems, obama, trump all agree with it. NRA and Senate Repubs are against it.
-
The difference is whether it applies to an individual on a member of a militia straw.
If she didn't distinguish between the two and saw no difference the. Why would she begin her caveat with an "if"?
where in that video did she mention being a member of a militia as a requirement for gun ownership?
-
where in that video did she mention being a member of a militia as a requirement for gun ownership?
That was the question straw, why would she not agree that it's an individual right straw?
Why would she use the term "if" assuming she saw no difference
-
people on the no-fly and terror-watch list can currently walk into a gun store and order a case of AR-15s.
Think about that. Dems, obama, trump all agree with it. NRA and Senate Repubs are against it.
You know who else is against it? The constitution!!!
YOU CANNOT STRIP AWAY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHOUY DUE PROCESS!!!!
It's that easy, make hate speech illegal.
I mean you're plenty ok with infringing on the second amendment why not the first?
-
That was the question straw, why would she not agree that it's an individual right straw?
Why would she use the term "if" assuming she saw no difference
when did she not agree ?
I understand your hangup with the word "if"
I've already said I don't like the way she and other politicians parse their words but I see nothing in that clip that leads me to believe she doesn't believe in the second amendment or that it only applies to members of a militia (has that ever been a requirement in the history of this country)
You're free to your own interpretation. I just don't agree with it.
-
when did she not agree ?
I understand your hangup with the word "if"
I've already said I don't like the way she and other politicians parse their words but I see nothing in that clip that leads me to believe she doesn't believe in the second amendment or that it only applies to members of a militia (has that ever been a requirement in the history of this country)
You're free to your own interpretation. I just don't agree with it.
She did not affirm that is an individual right straw, she side stepped the question and the gave a caveat with an "if"
I don't think there is much interpreting there but that's fine.
I agree with you, I don't like politics speak either. Bernie is a much better person than Hillary and trump
-
you can't think of any ideas on why someone would want that?
I can think of a few
let's start with the argument that the Cliven Bundy types will give you that they need to protect themselves against a tyrannical government or the more common argument that they need it for self defense against criminals
Yes of course, when someone breaks into your house jump into your Apache and fire a missile into your house, makes perfect sense ::)
-
Why not? If you can afford and maintain it. why anyone would want such things, I have no idea
your lunacy just did you in....thanks ;D
-
your lunacy just did you in....thanks ;D
My lunacy? Read the constitution, what does it say? The right to bear arms shall not be infringed - some part of that you don't understand?
-
Yes of course, when someone breaks into your house jump into your Apache and fire a missile into your house, makes perfect sense ::)
The Apache helicopter is needed for the individual to protect himself from a tyrannical government but If I understand you correctly the individual doesn't even need that reason.
He should be able to have whatever he is able to afford
-
Liberal trump is meeting with Nra today.
He's going to try to talk to them, convince them to give up their due process requirement.
No way they'll give up such an essential right- ban guns without due process- but now repubs have to agree with Obama and trump, of stand by their beliefs.
Trump making it harder each day