CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[2aguy]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

Actually, over 22,000 are suicides...and since Japan, South Korea and China have more suicides than that......we have fewer gun deaths than they have suicides......without guns.....

 

[jon_berzerk]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

syria
2016 14,192 killed 21,467 killed 13,617 killed 49,742 killed

Damn.....we are at the level of SYRIA?

not even close

the united states includes suicides

and such

syria is violence only

So our gun rights have turned us into Syria

no the civilians in Syria are not allowed to have firearms

 

[2aguy]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

that would be vote DEMOCRATIC, troll boy....

and yes, my son shoots. my husband shoots.

you know what they say about assuming, right, little boy?

and not wanting domestic abusers, crazies and criminals to have guns isn't being opposed to the 2nd amendment.

If you people would stop there, and allow due process before you took those guns.....it wouldn't be a problem...but that isn't where you stop.

And if you guys would keep violent criminals locked up, our gun crime rate would be even lower than it is now....but for some reason, you keep letting violent gun criminals back out on the streets....why is that?

 

[2aguy]

best thing about these threads is that they put normal people on notice as to the plans and lies of the democrats , hilary , lefties and the new imported people to the USA 'Fifth Column' .

Which is why I post them.....

 

[jon_berzerk]

Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?


nope

wrong-o buckeroo

im correct-a-mundo

you couldnt legal your way out chore ass

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

most of those are suicides.
suicide is a choice

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

that would be vote DEMOCRATIC, troll boy....

and yes, my son shoots. my husband shoots.

you know what they say about assuming, right, little boy?

and not wanting domestic abusers, crazies and criminals to have guns isn't being opposed to the 2nd amendment.

where has anyone said criminals should have guns?

 

[Lysistrata]

The Second Amendment only supports the idea that somehow another country is going to invade the United States, reviewing the history of this amendment when the threat of a British invasion was at hand, which happened in 1812. This idea that it stands for keeping armed against the United States government is totally bogus. It's a fraud. Should we be armed against the trump prostitute administration? Is this what you wish for?

 

[jillian]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

that would be vote DEMOCRATIC, troll boy....

and yes, my son shoots. my husband shoots.

you know what they say about assuming, right, little boy?

and not wanting domestic abusers, crazies and criminals to have guns isn't being opposed to the 2nd amendment.

where has anyone said criminals should have guns?

when you object to background checks and registration, criminals, domestic abusers and crazies get guns.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course you can

The second amendment says nothing against background checks, bans on large capacity magazines or gun registration

Yeah...it does.....if any of those things become poll taxes, or literacy tests...then they are unConstitutional....and since the 2nd Amendment is an actual Right....you have to show a really good reason to impose a restriction, just like for all the other rights....and as we keep showing you, bans on magazines have no value....

Gun registration leads to gun confiscation.....and actual criminals do not have to register their illegally owned guns as found in the Haynes v. United States decision...so if felons don't have to register their guns, normal citizens won't have to register their guns....equal protection under the law being the operative condition....

They have been found to be reasonable conditions of gun ownership

Even in Heller

 

[rightwinger]

Gun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment

 

[rightwinger]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

most of those are suicides.
suicide is a choice

Still a gun death

 

[jon_berzerk]

Gun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment

--LOL

no it is not

--LOL

the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at

after brits came for the armories and powder houses

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you vote for Democrats and support the Second Amendment.

Sure. I'm all for well-regulated militias.

On a serious note, Germany has very strict gun control, and very low crime, but yet there are 18 million privately owned guns in German hands.

Does North Korea have a "well regulated militia"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

that would be vote DEMOCRATIC, troll boy....

and yes, my son shoots. my husband shoots.

you know what they say about assuming, right, little boy?

and not wanting domestic abusers, crazies and criminals to have guns isn't being opposed to the 2nd amendment.

where has anyone said criminals should have guns?

when you object to background checks and registration, criminals, domestic abusers and crazies get guns.

I don't object to those things. Never have. Most gun owners don't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

most of those are suicides.
suicide is a choice

Still a gun death

Suicide and guns are not related at all.

There are countries that have far more suicides than we and have strict gun control.

Why do you want to tell people they can't choose to commit suicide?

 

[jillian]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

that would be vote DEMOCRATIC, troll boy....

and yes, my son shoots. my husband shoots.

you know what they say about assuming, right, little boy?

and not wanting domestic abusers, crazies and criminals to have guns isn't being opposed to the 2nd amendment.

where has anyone said criminals should have guns?

when you object to background checks and registration, criminals, domestic abusers and crazies get guns.

I don't object to those things. Never have. Most gun owners don't.

that's true. but the NRA does.... so their shills in the GOP who want their money oppose those things even though about 90% of the country wants them.

if we were asked to vote on it, these things would pass resoundingly.

 

[rightwinger]

Gun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment

--LOL

no it is not

--LOL

the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at

after brits came for the armories and powder houses

A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....

How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it

 

[rightwinger]

yeah , suicides don't count . Whats the number of gun deaths in a country of over 320 million of all sorts . Its pretty low and is called the cost of being FREE to own guns .

32000 gun deaths a year

Worst in the world

most of those are suicides.
suicide is a choice

Still a gun death

Suicide and guns are not related at all.

There are countries that have far more suicides than we and have strict gun control.

Why do you want to tell people they can't choose to commit suicide?

Leading method of suicide by far

 

[bodecea]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

Sure we can...and do. We are not gun grabbers.....it's this silly fear by those wanting to keep the Right in a perpetual state of fear so they buy more guns (ok for $$$) and keep voting RW.