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

[bodecea]

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

We don't care anymore about that. It's very obvious.
The best thing to do is encourage gun ownership....particularly to women and minorities.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

300 million guns out there ...we are not doing a very good job of grabbing

We just want to keep high capability weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies

 

[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

We don't care anymore about that. It's very obvious.
The best thing to do is encourage gun ownership....particularly to women and minorities.

We shrug, offer hopes and prayers and then thank god for our weapons

 

[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

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

How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?

that is what makes us safe

 

[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

How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?

that is what makes us safe

Well organized militias depend on gun registration

 

[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.

where has anyone said criminals should have guns?

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

The people who committed the 9,616 gun murders in 2015 did not get stopped by background checks, 90% of them were criminals with long histories of crime and violence which means they could not legally buy, own or carry guns.....

Registration...do you even understand this point? Haynes v. United States specifically states that criminals cannot be forced to register their illegal guns...do you understand this? That means the only people who have to register their guns at this point are law abiding gun owners...which means that registration would not stop criminals, domestic abusers or crazies from getting guns...but it will give the government a list of gun owners for when people like you get the political power to ban and confiscate guns....as they have done in Germany, France, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California.......

You post these things and you don't even understand them....

 

[2aguy]

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

No, actuallly, they haven't. Haynes v. United States holds that felons do not have to register their illegal guns.....standard capacity magazines are in common use...so they are not allowed to be banned by Heller......please, keep up...

 

[2aguy]

Gun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment

Nope.....

 

[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.

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.

Most gun owners don't understand those policies...especially universal background checks and gun registration. If they did, they would not want anything to do with them.

 

[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.

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.

The uninformed people answering deceptive poll questions don't understand what you guys really want to do with universal background checks and gun registration...if you actually asked accurate poll questions, they would not support them.

 

[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

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

Not in Japan, China, South Korea or most of Europe.......so no...you are wrong, again....and for 2014, and 2015, non gun suicide was the leading cause of suicide in the United States...so wrong again....

 

[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.

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.

300 million guns out there ...we are not doing a very good job of grabbing

We just want to keep high capability weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies

You can't do that now with existing background checks and bans on felons getting guns...but just give you another useless law and that will change everything...right?

 

[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

We don't care anymore about that. It's very obvious.
The best thing to do is encourage gun ownership....particularly to women and minorities.

We shrug, offer hopes and prayers and then thank god for our weapons

Considering Americans use their guns to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times a year, on average, we are thankful for our guns.....

Considering that as gun ownership and carrying guns went up in this country, gun violence, gun murder and violent crime went down....we are thankful for our guns....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Sure ya can. I'm living, breathing, gun owning proof.

Here's a nice picture for you.

 

[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.

Most gun owners don't understand those policies...especially universal background checks and gun registration. If they did, they would not want anything to do with them.

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

 

[Skull Pilot]

View attachment 162766 Sure ya can. I'm living, breathing, gun owning proof.

Here's a nice picture for you.

Yeah that's convincing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

yes! I have guns and I vote democrat

 

[Peach]

Yes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

View attachment 162766 Sure ya can. I'm living, breathing, gun owning proof.

Here's a nice picture for you.

Yeah that's convincing.

It's not?

 

[Humorme]

You cannot be a Democrat and believe in the Second Amendment.