The Second Civil a War starts in 2019

[C_Clayton_Jones]

GHOOK93 SAID:

“Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted.”

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

‘Gun control’ is a meaningless term absent specifics.

Background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and prohibiting guns in sensitive places such as government buildings represent ‘gun control’ and are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional.

As for ‘gun confiscation’ – that’s a ridiculous notion which will never happen, and something Clinton in no way supports.

Any law or measure enacted authorizing ‘confiscation’ of guns would be prima facia un-Constitutional, in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. and immediately enjoined by the courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Clinton is pushing for a repeal of McDonald v Chicago, putting gun regulation back in the hands of the States. And possibly a federal assault weapon's ban. The former is somewhat plausible. The latter isn't.”

Actually not.

Clinton isn’t ‘pushing’ for any such thing.

In fact, liberals support Heller/McDonald and its subsequence Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court would have any reason to vote to overturn Heller/McDonald, which would have the effect of throwing out that Second Amendment case law liberal jurists for the most part support.

 

[GHook93]

GHOOK93 SAID:

“Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted.”

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

‘Gun control’ is a meaningless term absent specifics.

Background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and prohibiting guns in sensitive places such as government buildings represent ‘gun control’ and are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional.

As for ‘gun confiscation’ – that’s a ridiculous notion which will never happen, and something Clinton in no way supports.

Any law or measure enacted authorizing ‘confiscation’ of guns would be prima facia un-Constitutional, in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. and immediately enjoined by the courts.

They never thought it would happen in the UK and Australia but it did.

I mean absolutely gun control. No more private gun ownership or extremely strict private ownership limited to the elites.

And yes it is very plausible

 

[Skylar]

GHOOK93 SAID:

“Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted.”

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

‘Gun control’ is a meaningless term absent specifics.

Background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and prohibiting guns in sensitive places such as government buildings represent ‘gun control’ and are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional.

As for ‘gun confiscation’ – that’s a ridiculous notion which will never happen, and something Clinton in no way supports.

Any law or measure enacted authorizing ‘confiscation’ of guns would be prima facia un-Constitutional, in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. and immediately enjoined by the courts.

They never thought it would happen in the UK and Australia but it did.

I mean absolutely gun control. No more private gun ownership or extremely strict private ownership limited to the elites.

And yes it is very plausible

No, its not. Its the same chicken little nonsense that was offered in 2008 as 'inevitable' if Obama was elected. After 8 years of laughable failure of the prediction, the word 'Obama' has been replaced with 'Clinton' and the same horseshit verbatim has been offered again.

After 8 solid years of comic failure, why would any rational person believe you this time?

 

[GHook93]

GHOOK93 SAID:

“Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted.”

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

‘Gun control’ is a meaningless term absent specifics.

Background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and prohibiting guns in sensitive places such as government buildings represent ‘gun control’ and are perfectly reasonable and Constitutional.

As for ‘gun confiscation’ – that’s a ridiculous notion which will never happen, and something Clinton in no way supports.

Any law or measure enacted authorizing ‘confiscation’ of guns would be prima facia un-Constitutional, in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. and immediately enjoined by the courts.

They never thought it would happen in the UK and Australia but it did.

I mean absolutely gun control. No more private gun ownership or extremely strict private ownership limited to the elites.

And yes it is very plausible

No, its not. Its the same chicken little nonsense that was offered in 2008 as 'inevitable' if Obama was elected. After 8 years of laughable failure of the prediction, the word 'Obama' has been replaced with 'Clinton' and the same horseshit verbatim has been offered again.

After 8 solid years of comic failure, why would any rational person believe you this time?

Obama never got through gun confiscation. He had a SCOTUS that prevented him or the blue states from doing such a thing.

Clinton will have a 5 justice liberal bloc on the SCOTUS and she will have the power to impose absolute gun control and confiscation.


Obama's rhetoric has severely divided the country along race and ideological lines. He laid the ground work for an armed conflict. Clinton might just light the fuse!

 

[xyz]

Global Warming and anti-energy policies are passed.

lol

 

[GLASNOST]

A Second American Civil War?
You can avoid bloodshed by electing Mikael Gorbatjov instead. But if you do ..... for God's sake listen to him this time!

 

[martybegan]

“Clinton is pushing for a repeal of McDonald v Chicago, putting gun regulation back in the hands of the States. And possibly a federal assault weapon's ban. The former is somewhat plausible. The latter isn't.”

Actually not.

Clinton isn’t ‘pushing’ for any such thing.

In fact, liberals support Heller/McDonald and its subsequence Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court would have any reason to vote to overturn Heller/McDonald, which would have the effect of throwing out that Second Amendment case law liberal jurists for the most part support.

how about you agree to pay me 10000 to one odds if Heller is overturned in the next 4 years if you are that sure about it?

 

[GHook93]

UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Senator Admits Hillary Will Issue Gun Control Executive Order | The Sean Hannity Show

Her plans revealed?

 

[GHook93]

“Clinton is pushing for a repeal of McDonald v Chicago, putting gun regulation back in the hands of the States. And possibly a federal assault weapon's ban. The former is somewhat plausible. The latter isn't.”

Actually not.

Clinton isn’t ‘pushing’ for any such thing.

In fact, liberals support Heller/McDonald and its subsequence Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court would have any reason to vote to overturn Heller/McDonald, which would have the effect of throwing out that Second Amendment case law liberal jurists for the most part support.

how about you agree to pay me 10000 to one odds if Heller is overturned in the next 4 years if you are that sure about it?

His logic makes zero sense. Liberals absolutely hate Heller. DC passed a law disallowing gun ownership I. DC. Yes you couldn't own a gun in DC. It was a 5-4 decision to over rule this bad law.

Imagine if it came about with Hilliary's appointment! The banning of firearms would be legal.

 

[toxicmedia]

As much as I want to think Trump will win the election, I think he will lose badly and take the senate down with him. Erosions of rights and a clash of ideologies will lead to civil war.

(1) Clinton wins and Democrats take a 52-48 majority.
(2) Clinton replaces Scalia with a leftist ideolog to create the 5 judge liberal block.
(3) The changes senate rules ends the filibuster and rules by majority. Republicans sue and the SCOTUS rules 5-4 for the majority.
(4) Clinton through executive order provides amnesty and voter rights to illegals.
(5) The Dems take the House and more seats in the senate.
(6) Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted; Late Term Abortions becomes law of the land; the inner cities erode to the point that they are unsafe to all those who enter regardless of race; Global Warming and anti-energy policies are passed.
(7) Texas has a vote to leave the union. It passes. AZ, UT, LS, ND, SD, WY, IN, MO, GA, NC, SC, MS, NB, KY, AK, WV, MT, AR, AL, KS and ID follow suit. Soon after a few surprising states also follow suit: FL, VA, CO, NM, HI and VT.
(8) All these states join a collation called the Free States of the Americas FSA, except: a) HI (Declares Independence from the mainland), b) AK (Declares themselves the Independent State of Alaska) and c) VT (Declares themselves a communist state under New Socialist Dictator Bernie Sanders).
(9) Washington declares the separatist movement illegal and demands the separatist to submit. The separatist remain defiant.
(10) Washington mobilizes and seeks NATO support. Only Britain, Australia and Canada heed the call. Offer weapons and troops.
(11) The FSA mobilizes and only gets one ally, but it is a big one. Mother Russia. They make a secret deal to offer AK and complete non-intervention and UN help when Russia takes back the Soviet states by force.
(12) Washington's first acts are to take back the independent states of HI and VT. They take both states in a matter of weeks.
(13) Washington strikes first. The bloody civil war embarks.
(14) Mexico is adversely affecting seeing a huge migration of refugee seek asylum in Mexico. Ironically Mexico builds a war a closes the border to all but people of Mexican heritage and wealthy non-Mexican who can pay a hefty entry fee.

What can I say slow day at the office.

Thank God.

The North, along with the West......or at least the Liberal states, get to beat the southerners again!

Can't wait!

 

[martybegan]

“Clinton is pushing for a repeal of McDonald v Chicago, putting gun regulation back in the hands of the States. And possibly a federal assault weapon's ban. The former is somewhat plausible. The latter isn't.”

Actually not.

Clinton isn’t ‘pushing’ for any such thing.

In fact, liberals support Heller/McDonald and its subsequence Second Amendment jurisprudence.

No Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court would have any reason to vote to overturn Heller/McDonald, which would have the effect of throwing out that Second Amendment case law liberal jurists for the most part support.

how about you agree to pay me 10000 to one odds if Heller is overturned in the next 4 years if you are that sure about it?

His logic makes zero sense. Liberals absolutely hate Heller. DC passed a law disallowing gun ownership I. DC. Yes you couldn't own a gun in DC. It was a 5-4 decision to over rule this bad law.

Imagine if it came about with Hilliary's appointment! The banning of firearms would be legal.

Plus you still have de facto gun bans in cities like NYC, where it takes 3-6 months and $1000 in fees just to get a home use handgun permit, and to get a Concealed carry permit you have to prove to some NYPD flunky that you "really really need one"

Meanwhile cops can carry off duty as the please, even when retired. It's cronyism at its finest.

 

[GHook93]

As much as I want to think Trump will win the election, I think he will lose badly and take the senate down with him. Erosions of rights and a clash of ideologies will lead to civil war.

(1) Clinton wins and Democrats take a 52-48 majority.
(2) Clinton replaces Scalia with a leftist ideolog to create the 5 judge liberal block.
(3) The changes senate rules ends the filibuster and rules by majority. Republicans sue and the SCOTUS rules 5-4 for the majority.
(4) Clinton through executive order provides amnesty and voter rights to illegals.
(5) The Dems take the House and more seats in the senate.
(6) Gun Control and Confiscation gets enacted; Late Term Abortions becomes law of the land; the inner cities erode to the point that they are unsafe to all those who enter regardless of race; Global Warming and anti-energy policies are passed.
(7) Texas has a vote to leave the union. It passes. AZ, UT, LS, ND, SD, WY, IN, MO, GA, NC, SC, MS, NB, KY, AK, WV, MT, AR, AL, KS and ID follow suit. Soon after a few surprising states also follow suit: FL, VA, CO, NM, HI and VT.
(8) All these states join a collation called the Free States of the Americas FSA, except: a) HI (Declares Independence from the mainland), b) AK (Declares themselves the Independent State of Alaska) and c) VT (Declares themselves a communist state under New Socialist Dictator Bernie Sanders).
(9) Washington declares the separatist movement illegal and demands the separatist to submit. The separatist remain defiant.
(10) Washington mobilizes and seeks NATO support. Only Britain, Australia and Canada heed the call. Offer weapons and troops.
(11) The FSA mobilizes and only gets one ally, but it is a big one. Mother Russia. They make a secret deal to offer AK and complete non-intervention and UN help when Russia takes back the Soviet states by force.
(12) Washington's first acts are to take back the independent states of HI and VT. They take both states in a matter of weeks.
(13) Washington strikes first. The bloody civil war embarks.
(14) Mexico is adversely affecting seeing a huge migration of refugee seek asylum in Mexico. Ironically Mexico builds a war a closes the border to all but people of Mexican heritage and wealthy non-Mexican who can pay a hefty entry fee.

What can I say slow day at the office.

Thank God.

The North, along with the West......or at least the Liberal states, get to beat the southerners again!

Can't wait!

All civil wars, esp modern, have destroyed the country. The winner presides over rubble and rebuilding is a tough long road the few ever full recover.