As Reagan once said: "Well, there you go again."

[sportage]

Well, there you go again, this time telling people that Hillary will take away your guns.
Are people really falling for this stunt, yet again?
Republicans said this about Obama, and surprise surprise the guns are still here.
No laws were changed. No Obama cops went around confiscating anyones gun.
The guns are still here, legal, and if anything we have more guns now under Obama than we had before Obama came in.
Now, Donald Trump is saying the exact same thing about Hillary.
To quote the big buffoon: "She’s very much against the Second Amendment,” Trump said in Miami. “She wants to destroy your Second Amendment. Guns, guns, guns, right?"

Every election, especially every single presidential election, republicans drag out this old sorry sack of tricks, trying to scary voters over the 2nd Amendment.
"They are after the guns."
"They are going to take away your guns."
"They will repeal the 2nd Amendment."

Does this lame republican trickery still work?
I can see how Donald Trump would think it would, after all Donald has the brain of a child.
But does anyone, even the Trump clan, really believe this?
How many elections will republicans consistently swear that the democrat are after their guns?
As if any democrat, president or whatever, could dare challenge the all powerful NRA.
Or with a swipe of a pen, eliminate the 2nd Amendment from the constitution.

There you go again, Mr republican candidate, trying to scare voters that owning a gun is in jeopardy.
Fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me twice, shame on you.
Fool me election after election, I must be a Donald Trump supporter. 😉
If any politician from any political party running for any public office actually possessed the power to take away even one gun, then they would not be a mere human mortal. They would be A GOD!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-clinton-bodyguards_us_57dc7827e4b0071a6e07a93c

 

[compuwiz1]

Well, even this scares the crap out of me and causes me pause, as it pertains to my 2nd amendment rights. I believe Hillary will stack the supreme court with the kind of justices that will change these rights, if by nothing more than reinterpretation. Shes already said she likes Australia's gun buy back.This is one area of my life where I don't want action from a liberal's POV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

 

[ivwshane]

Well, even this scares the crap out of me and causes me pause, as it pertains to my 2nd amendment rights. I believe Hillary will stack the supreme court with the kind of justices that will change these rights, if by nothing more than reinterpretation. Shes already said she likes Australia's gun buy back.This is one area of my life where I don't want action from a liberal's POV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

How does it feel to be a tool of the right? They love that they can persuade you over a single issue that has no chance of happening.

 

[compuwiz1]

How does it feel to be a tool of the right? They love that they can persuade you over a single issue that has no chance of happening.

Nobody has persuaded me of anything. That's always, for my whole life, been one of those issues that I don't let my guard down on. Maybe I follow my Grandfather and my Father, but that's pretty ingrained in us and we have been finely tuned to listen carefully to what our politicians say. There is no wiggle room on the subject of 2A for me, as it didn't come with specifications or restrictions. "The right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed." Any politician advocating for anything, other than that, can kiss my ass.

 

[Strk]

Well, even this scares the crap out of me and causes me pause, as it pertains to my 2nd amendment rights. I believe Hillary will stack the supreme court with the kind of justices that will change these rights, if by nothing more than reinterpretation. Shes already said she likes Australia's gun buy back.This is one area of my life where I don't want action from a liberal's POV.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

And the fact that the President nor the Supreme Court have a say in an amendment doesn't carry a lot of weight to you? They can support it and they say they'd like to get rid of it, but in the end, neither one has an actual vote on it.

 

[fskimospy]

Nobody has persuaded me of anything. That's always, for my whole life, been one of those issues that I don't let my guard down on. Maybe I follow my Grandfather and my Father, but that's pretty ingrained in us and we have been finely tuned to listen carefully to what our politicians say. There is no wiggle room on the subject of 2A for me, as it didn't come with specifications or restrictions. "The right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed." Any politician advocating for anything, other than that, can kiss my ass.

The first amendment also comes with no specifications or restrictions. Does that mean no restrictions on speech are allowed? If not, why is the second amendment special?

 

[glenn1]

Substitute "abortion" for guns in the OP and it could just as easily be written about Democrats. Just because either side may not be able to currently achieve their desires to restrict their respective boogeymen doesn't mean the desire isn't there. Or that members of the opposite party should not be vigilant about denying them the means.

 

[fskimospy]

Substitute "abortion" for guns in the OP and it could just as easily be written about Democrats. Just because either side may not be able to currently achieve their desires to restrict their respective boogeymen doesn't mean the desire isn't there. Or that members of the opposite party should not be vigilant about denying them the means.

Except of course that the Republican Party platform is one that explicitly seeks to ban abortion while the Democratic Party platform explicitly does not seek to ban guns, only to regulate them more significantly.

'They want to ban abortion!' is undeniably factually correct. 'They want to ban guns!' is undeniably factually incorrect.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Trump does have a point here. Hillary will be able to appoint a judge to the supreme court who will most definitely be in favor of restricting second amendment rights.

It wouldn't be hard for the California assault weapons ban or the New York assault weapons ban to make it to the supreme court. There all they would have to do is uphold it as being constitutional.

This would open the door to a similar law being passed in congress as soon as the democrats get a majority in both houses.

 

[glenn1]

Except of course that the Republican Party platform is one that explicitly seeks to ban abortion while the Democratic Party platform explicitly does not seek to ban guns, only to regulate them more significantly.

'They want to ban abortion!' is undeniably factually correct. 'They want to ban guns!' is undeniably factually incorrect.

Oh yeah, that's right. Democrats only want to ban handguns, "assault weapons," and other entire classes of weapons and leave a few available in cases where you live somewhere else far away (like rural Alaska) and own an antique firearm. That's sooooooooooooooo much different than Republicans who want to ban entire classes of abortions and leave a few available in cases of "life of the mother" and maybe rape or incest.

Hey, maybe just to keep things even then GOP should advocate criminal background checks prior to every abortion. Or outlaw surgical instruments with scary cosmetic features.

 

[Brainonska511]

Y'all freak out about a Supreme Court supporting more restrictions on guns while ignoring all the other shitty things that have been imposed on us by conservative courts. Things like arbitration screw us all on a regular basis, but we ignore that until a company wrongs us and we're left unable to enforce our rights.

 

[Strk]

Oh yeah, that's right. Democrats only want to ban handguns, "assault weapons," and other entire classes of weapons and leave a few available in cases where you live somewhere else far away (like rural Alaska) and own an antique firearm. That's sooooooooooooooo much different than Republicans who want to ban entire classes of abortions and leave a few available in cases of "life of the mother" and maybe rape or incest.

Hey, maybe just to keep things even then GOP should advocate criminal background checks prior to every abortion. Or outlaw surgical instruments with scary cosmetic features.

Was it Texas that tried to severely limit abortions with building code violations?

 

[glenn1]

Was it Texas that tried to severely limit abortions with building code violations?

Wasn't it Chicago, DC, and other Democratic run cities that succeeded in essentially banning firearms, often for decades before SCOTUS stepped in?

 

[glenn1]

dp

 

[fskimospy]

Oh yeah, that's right. Democrats only want to ban handguns, "assault weapons," and other entire classes of weapons and leave a few available in cases where you live somewhere else far away (like rural Alaska) and own an antique firearm. That's sooooooooooooooo much different than Republicans who want to ban entire classes of abortions and leave a few available in cases of "life of the mother" and maybe rape or incest.

Hey, maybe just to keep things even then GOP should advocate criminal background checks prior to every abortion. Or outlaw surgical instruments with scary cosmetic features.

Why would you have similar restrictions for abortion as to guns? That's illogical.

It should be telling that you need to straw man the Democratic position to even get it close to what the republican position is. Just further evidence of the ideological extremity of conservatives.

 

[Jaskalas]

And the fact that the President nor the Supreme Court have a say in an amendment doesn't carry a lot of weight to you? They can support it and they say they'd like to get rid of it, but in the end, neither one has an actual vote on it.

That wouldn't make the slightest difference. The court can make up meanings behind existing laws. The administration can get away with murder so long as the other branches fail to oppose it. There's a lot of power there, regardless of the specific roles they each play. You don't have to appeal an amendment to violate one.

Laughing off two branches of government is either deep partisanship or ignorance.

In fact, these days it's Congress that hardly does anything without 60+ majorities. They might theoretically be the most powerful but they are deeply divided and impotent while remaining so.

 

[Strk]

That wouldn't make the slightest difference. The court can make up meanings behind existing laws. The administration can get away with murder so long as the other branches fail to oppose it. There's a lot of power there, regardless of the specific roles they each play. You don't have to appeal an amendment to violate one.

Laughing off two branches of government is either deep partisanship or ignorance.

In fact, these days it's Congress that hardly does anything without 60+ majorities. They might theoretically be the most powerful but they are deeply divided and impotent while remaining so.

How does not having a vote not make the slightest difference? That sounds like a pretty big difference to me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

while i won't believe anything coming from the mouth of trump, there is some basis of fact in "democrats want to take your guns away" - see any ban on "assault weapons", california's recently passed legislation, NY SAFE act, maryland passed some new laws (cant remember all the deets), MA attorney general unilaterally reinterpreted a gun law after almost 2 decades, and so on. the hilarious part is that none of these laws (or changes to existing ones) will actually meaningfully impact gun violence. all it does is turn legal, law abiding owners into criminals by the stroke of a pen.

 

[bradly1101]

Repeat

 

[bradly1101]

The fear gun owners have is that they will be taken away or have restrictions on purchasing, so they stock up. No one but Obama has increased sales of these weapons more. The gun manufacturers know that Obama is great for sales since their customers are so gullible.

Facts rarely matter to the emotional (fearful) ones.

 

[theeedude]

Yep, Republicans are easy to play.

 

[ivwshane]

Nobody has persuaded me of anything. That's always, for my whole life, been one of those issues that I don't let my guard down on. Maybe I follow my Grandfather and my Father, but that's pretty ingrained in us and we have been finely tuned to listen carefully to what our politicians say. There is no wiggle room on the subject of 2A for me, as it didn't come with specifications or restrictions. "The right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed." Any politician advocating for anything, other than that, can kiss my ass.

Lol, you've been played your whole life!

 

[glenn1]

Why would you have similar restrictions for abortion as to guns? That's illogical.

It should be telling that you need to straw man the Democratic position to even get it close to what the republican position is. Just further evidence of the ideological extremity of conservatives.

LOL at you trying to cite "logic" for what are extremely emotional issues like guns and abortion. Are you even human or some Vulcan like Spock who has never encountered earthlings before? Hell the entire pro-choice pitch is almost exclusively emotional rather than logical, coat hangers and back alleys. Gun enthusiasts aren't much better but at least cite some statistics and reasoning to support their case even if it's often done poorly.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL at you trying to cite "logic" for what are extremely emotional issues like guns and abortion. Are you even human or some Vulcan like Spock who has never encountered earthlings before? Hell the entire pro-choice pitch is almost exclusively emotional rather than logical, coat hangers and back alleys. Gun enthusiasts aren't much better but at least cite some statistics and reasoning to support their case even if it's often done poorly.

What made you think that abortion is an emotional argument rather than an issue that has a direct impact on women's personal and financial health? You realize there are studies about this, right?

Same with gun laws by the way, studies there too. Guess what? They support gun control for the most part too.

 

[master_shake_]

Was it Texas that tried to severely limit abortions with building code violations?

yes.

they insisted that private clinics had 8 foot hallways so 2 stretchers could pass by each other