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

[2aguy]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

 

[Humorme]

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

And if you would forfeit the Fourth Amendment, you do not deserve to own a firearm.

 

[Humorme]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

 

[2aguy]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

 

[Humorme]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

You can not be human and allow terrorist, nutcases and the mentally ill to have guns.

 

[Humorme]

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

You can not be human and allow terrorist, nutcases and the mentally ill to have guns.

So, remove terrorists and nutcases out of society. Terrorists belong in prisons or graves; mentally unstable people need to be under the supervision of people who can look out for their welfare.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

Really? Why is that? Your interpretation isn't even academia's interpretation of the 2nd, let alone the accepted interpretation.

The 2A merely says you have the right to keep "arms" and to fight for your state and your own/families lives.

It doesn't say you have the right to own weapons of mass destruction. Felons are denied the ability to own firearms, yet they still retain their right to own a weapon via a knife, bow, air rifle, etc.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

And if you would forfeit the Fourth Amendment, you do not deserve to own a firearm.

The 4A has no bearing on anything here. Again your inept interpretation of the words in the USC show your utter ignorance.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

That's because their is no 4A infringement regarding the 2A. You merely have the right to own a weapon, not necessarily to own a firearm. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to own a weapon, it protects the right as granted before the USC via the 1689 EBoR.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

What would you be incriminating yourself with via a background check to purchase a firearm? You merely have the right to keep a weapon, not necessarily a firearm.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

You can not be human and allow terrorist, nutcases and the mentally ill to have guns.

So, remove terrorists and nutcases out of society. Terrorists belong in prisons or graves; mentally unstable people need to be under the supervision of people who can look out for their welfare.

Mentally unstable people must first be diagnosed mentally unstable, what if they aren't diagnosed? Whose responsibility is it to make sure everybody is diagnosed? Why would you take away a persons right to self defense without being found guilty in the first place?

 

[francoHFW]

nothing about CONVERTED auto weapons , he11 , you guys cry about normal Semi Auto AR15 Rifles with Normal capacity magazines Franco .

Doesn't bother me much but these military weapons the way they look I think triggers insane people. Hunting rifles should be enough. It's not as if you Jokers are going to take on a tyrannical US Army mano a mano LOL

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

Yes.

Lets say you somehow supported the ENTIRE Democratic party platform except on gun control measures.

For my ENTIRE LIFE you could have voted Democrat and had nothing meaningful done against your right to bear arms.

Kinda like if you vote Republican just hoping they would outlaw abortion you would have wasted your vote for the last 40 years.

On a more trivial note, each has won small victories outlawing guns or abortions but man. That's a lot of yelling and I can essentially still have my abortion unless something strange is going on and I can buy a semi-auto AK-47 on the way home.

 

[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.

It's not?

How can it be?

In case you didn't know this is an anonymous board and a blacked out permit means nothing

 

[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?

How can it be?

In case you didn't know this is an anonymous board and a blacked out permit means nothing[/QUO

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?

How can it be?

In case you didn't know this is an anonymous board and a blacked out permit means nothing

Well, that's what you get. You don't think I'd let someone like you have my name, do you?

You must be one of those people who find it necessary to lie on an anonymous forum. I'm the opposite.

 

[rightwinger]

nothing about CONVERTED auto weapons , he11 , you guys cry about normal Semi Auto AR15 Rifles with Normal capacity magazines Franco .

Doesn't bother me much but these military weapons the way they look I think triggers insane people. Hunting rifles should be enough. It's not as if you Jokers are going to take on a tyrannical US Army mano a mano LOL

Buying that AR-15 gives you Rambo fantasies

 

[jon_berzerk]

nothing about CONVERTED auto weapons , he11 , you guys cry about normal Semi Auto AR15 Rifles with Normal capacity magazines Franco .

Doesn't bother me much but these military weapons the way they look I think triggers insane people. Hunting rifles should be enough. It's not as if you Jokers are going to take on a tyrannical US Army mano a mano LOL

Buying that AR-15 gives you Rambo fantasies

--LOL

 

[rightwinger]

nothing about CONVERTED auto weapons , he11 , you guys cry about normal Semi Auto AR15 Rifles with Normal capacity magazines Franco .

Doesn't bother me much but these military weapons the way they look I think triggers insane people. Hunting rifles should be enough. It's not as if you Jokers are going to take on a tyrannical US Army mano a mano LOL

Buying that AR-15 gives you Rambo fantasies

--LOL