1911Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred

The Wall Street Journal:

Notable &Quotable
January 17, 2008

A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:

MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT: Sen. Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.

The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent. I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

So here's what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. 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.

RUSSERT: But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053364436796229.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,405 Posts
While I'd never support her (or her husband),
she had me going until she mentioned the assault weapons ban. I have no problem with a felon/mentally incapacitated database. Got nothing against cracking down on illegal firearms dealers. I would challenge her about her statement that bad guys are killing cops more frequently now that the assault ban has been lifted. I think she's talking out of both sides of her mouth.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,611 Posts
How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred
And that is different from a republican how?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,526 Posts
Got nothing against cracking down on illegal firearms dealers.
neither does anyone else...Clinton doublespeak, as far as she is concerned my M1 carbine and M1 Garand should be illegal guns as they have bayonet lugs.
She's lying like a rug....she is still for licensing, now that she's losing the black vote she has to keep as many voters as she can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
She's against illegal guns and wants to crack down on illegal gun dealers? Wow. I admire the conviction and courage. Next thing you know she's going to want to make illegal things against the law. You go girl!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,451 Posts
Why is it that when a person is elected to President of the United
States that person swears to uphold the Constitution of the United
States and yet we have so many candidates for President that want to
SELECTIVELY support the Constitution?

Candidates from both parties seem to think they can pick and choose
which amendments they will support. EXCUSE ME, it's the Constitution
folks. You support ALL of it or you are not fit to lead one of the
strongest nations in the world. Yet many of the candidates for
President can't even get to the third amendment before they have found
one that they do not want to support.

Does that mean or imply that each must own a gun? Heavens no. Ownership
is a RIGHT afforded those that are not a felon or mentally incompetent.
Other than that, it is your choice. A choice afforded by the Constitution
to citizens of the United States. Why then do so many candidates for
President want to ignore some of the Constitution?

WHICH PORTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL THEY CHOOSE TO IGNORE NEXT?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Why is it that when a person is elected to President of the United
States that person swears to uphold the Constitution of the United
States and yet we have so many candidates for President that want to
SELECTIVELY support the Constitution?
Agreed.

The truth of the matter is that nowdays, it truly isn't a matter of the Democrats wanting the restrict your 2nd Amendment rights, and the Republicans supporting those rights.

NEITHER of the parties main candidates have demonstrated an honest to God conviction to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Look at their records. The Republicans are hardly any better. Guiliani is a primary example.

We need to get away from buying into/accepting the old stereotypes that Democrats are against your Constitutional gun rights, and Republicans are for them. Look at what they do, not the rehotoric they say.

Republicans have proven over the past 8 years that they are just, if not more, pro big government, anti-civil liberties/Constitutionalist, and just as anti-gun as many Dems. It's sad, I wish it were not true, but facts speak for themselves.

I have little faith and trust in either party on this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
and that is different from a republican how?
Name one sitting Democrat Supreme Court Justice that is pro Gun. Let me help you, NONE! Are there anti gun Republican Justice’s, yup. But every one (that is the same as saying 100%) of the Pro Gun Supreme Court Justice’s are Republican.

In Police work, they call that a ‘Clue’.

The truth of the matter is that nowdays, it truly isn't a matter of the Democrats wanting the restrict your 2nd Amendment rights, and the Republicans supporting those rights.
Yes it is. The Democrats will not support your rights. Many, not all of the Republicans do support our rights to possess guns. Simple Math here.

NEITHER of the parties main candidates have demonstrated an honest to God conviction to uphold the 2nd Amendment. Look at their records. The Republicans are hardly any better. Guiliani is a primary example.
Well two Republicans are pro gun. Ron and Fred. Name a Democrat running that is in fact Pro Gun. Not even their Wack jobs. Our only hope is the Republicans.

We need to get away from buying into/accepting the old stereotypes that Democrats are against your Constitutional gun rights, and Republicans are for them. Look at what they do, not the rehotoric they say.
Totally wrong. It isn’t a stereotype, it is a fact.

OKAY, Name the Democrat Supreme court Justice that is FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GUN RIGHTS? It is a short answer, NONE., ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA.

The only Justices that are pro gun are Republicans. DO THE MATH.

Republicans have proven over the past 8 years that they are just, if not more, pro big government, anti-civil liberties/Constitutionalist, and just as anti-gun as many Dems. It's sad, I wish it were not true, but facts speak for themselves.
Wrong again. The 1994 AWB fell to the way side under the control of the Republican’s controlled Congress, and Presidency. Does anyone here believe if the Dims had controlled the Congress or the White house we wouldn’t still have the AWB yoke around our neck. And if you really believe that, just wait until either Obama or Hillary are elected. Particularly if they own the House and Senate.

By the way I agree about Government spending and the Republican Congress. But they also placed two pro gun Supreme Court Justices on the Supreme Court.

I have little faith and trust in either party on this issue.
I agree. The real difference is that the only party that has been gun friendly in the present and recent past is the Republican party.

I am waiting for any Democratic group of consequence to vote FOR A GUN ISSUE. Then maybe I would buy your premises. But the facts argue against everything you have said.

Again. Republican actions are not 100% pro gun. BUT! Democrat actions ARE 100% anti gun.

Go figure.

Fred
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
What a bunch of rambling garbage. I can't stand to hear her talk because all she does is side step the issues. The facts are clear, the AWB did NOTHING. Crime hasn't surged upwards at all in the last 4 years.:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,909 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,681 Posts
Hillary Clinton said:
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers.
Yeah but in her book all gun dealers illegal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,731 Posts
And that is different from a republican how?
Well, different from Thompson, Huckabee, Paul or (depending on the day of the week) Romney. They have their own problems, though. (Did anyone else see the GOP debate where Paul said that speedboats posed no threat to a USS destroyer (the USS Cole, anyone?) and that Iran should not be punished?!)

Anyway, yet another reason not to elect Hitlery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,474 Posts
What really offends me is.. they'll spend billions to defend the "rights" of a few pedophiles and terrorists.... but they'll wholesale jettison the rights of 250+million american citizens, most of whom are lawful and productive members of society.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I agree AWB did do nothing.....

What a bunch of rambling garbage. I can't stand to hear her talk because all she does is side step the issues. The facts are clear, the AWB did NOTHING. Crime hasn't surged upwards at all in the last 4 years.:mad:
But crime rates going up or down has to do with the ECONOMIC INSECURITY(or lack thereof) of the common folk/little guy, and not any gun rights legislation. But the crime rate HAS risen in the last 6 years, and that is according to "Republican" Bush Admin. Justice Dept. stats, and not any fearsome liberal.

We can also say without debate that while the richest of the rich have gotten extrememly wealthy under Bush economic tax cutting, de-regulation, and non-enforcement of corporate tax laws, ask yourself this......How far is your paycheck going now as opposed to 8 years ago. Hows that stock market doing for you? And why should a fellow like Bush who was born with a $10million trust fund pay 15% tax on the gains from that money, while you pay 30% on your LABOR/HARD WORK?

Don't get me wrong, I DO NOT SUPPORT HILARY CLINTON. But aside from a very few wedge issues like guns, and false differences based on religious myopia for example, there is hardly a lick of difference between the two parites 'publican OR democratic. While the true issues of our time, the transfer of wealth from the middleclass to the wealthiest of the wealthy is being perpetrated by BOTH PARTIES!! Right now the percentage of wealth that is currently held by the top 1.5% of the country when compared to everyone else is greater than anytime since 1928. Immediately prior to the great depression!

That FACT is soley OUR responsibility as a citizenry. We have abrogated our responsibility to pay attention in a meaningful manner to the debates and policies put forth in our names. We allow ourselves to be distracted by emotion and BS issues, rather than looking for the substance of what is said and done. And most of all we do not as a whole, pay any attention to recent history, or hold our representation (NOT LEADERS) accountable for their actions, when they should be called out.

The second ammendment is vital, as is the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th, the 8th ammendments, all of which have been either violated or totally ignored by Bush etal.

Tell you what, criticize the Dems all you want, as they are worthy of such. But criticize the 'publicans when they are worthy as well. And when you go to offer that criticism, do directly to them. Its easy and I do it all the freakin' time via email and phone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
As far as the 2nd ammendment goes...

The current makeup of the Supreme Court will keep that safe. Now if they will step up and put a stop to the warrantless surveilance, and stop the sneaking and peeking. Don't kid yourselves folks, Bush started that entire process (asking telecoms to allow govm'nt access to their servers, and systems for surveilance) in the beginning of FEB-01. 6 MONTHS BEFORE 9/11, yet has told us that it was needed to "protect us" from terrorists. By that "logic" it apparently didn't work too well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,787 Posts
:rolleyes:
Yeah, I guess 9-11 was an "inside job" too, huh...
Bush bashing crap....like gore or kerry woulda been so freakin' much better!
Nonsense!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
I'm a Life Member of the NRA, but Bush doesn't uphold the constitution. He does not protect our borders from all threats foreign and domestic. He's better friends with the government of Mexico than his own fellow Texans. He has authorized illegal infringement of americans rights and bypassed our governmenal system. Bush has lied about Irans having a nuclear program to force the price of oil up, and done nothing for the middle class. I agree Hilary is an anti bitch, but Bush thinks America is his bitch.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,888 Posts
And that is different from a republican how?
Sad, but true, LW (with the exception of Ron Paul, whose idea of a national security strategy ranks right up there with the vision of those who established the Flat Earth Society).

Of the other Republican candidates, Fred Thompson appears to be the closest to one who thinks the Second Amendment actually means what it says. Unfortunately, he seems to have figured out a little too late in the game that he has to actually get out and work/campaign if he wants to be elected President of this country.

Of the remainder, I'm afraid that McCain, Romney and Huckabee would all sell gun owners down the river if it were expedient to do so. The first two have already shown their contempt regarding private ownership of AR-type rifles and carbines, and Huckabee, with his populist-themed rhetoric, sounds more like a Democratic candidate every day.

I'm afraid this is a hold-your-nose election. While I'm clear that any Republican is better than either Clinton or Obama solely on the basis of national security, it's a pretty thin line of demarcation this cycle when it comes to the Second Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,101 Posts
Of the remainder, I'm afraid that McCain, Romney and Huckabee would all sell gun owners down the river if it were expedient to do so. The first two have already shown their contempt regarding private ownership of AR-type rifles and carbines, and Huckabee, with his populist-themed rhetoric, sounds more like a Democratic candidate every day.
Unless its based on your gut opinion of him, Huckabee doesnt deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as McCain and Romney on the 2nd Amendment going off what he says about our RKBA and his record in Arkansas as Governor. He might be wrong on some other issues but he is one of the best candidates on Gun Control. Thompson is equal to Huckabee on the 2nd Amendment, the only one better is Ron Paul, who, like you pointed out, is a wingnut when it comes to foreign policy.

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top