It is in Hillary's interests to pound the message, "I don't want your gun!"

Politics & Elections
1

There is quite the to-do about the 2nd Amendment in the Presidential contest. The Donald claims that Hillary is out to abolish the 2nd Amendment (more or less, maybe part of The Donald’s mind realizes that only Congress can repeal an Amendment), but there really is no case to be made for this claim.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, especially if I am really very badly wrong, but AFAICT all Hillary wants wrt guns is universal background checks, plus maybe a ban on assault rifle sales, all really for the purpose that less innocent citizens get shot and killed for no good reason.

Background checks for all gun purchases? Who does this hurt? Maybe shady gun dealers, but everybody who is above-board can live with background checks for gun purchases. Really!

Assault rifle ban? Well for one, most people are shot and killed by handguns, so this will have a limited effect on gun violence. For two, there are a whole lotta assault rifles out there already, and I am telling you I don’t see the point in trying to take them away, but it would be better if Hillary herself really pounded the message home nationally to the farthest corners of the hardest-to-broadcast-to places that she doesn’t have any interest in taking those guns, or any guns, away from people.

Plus, Bill Clinton signed an assault rifle ban many years ago. How did that turn out? It came and went. It focused the attention of gun-lovers on assault rifles. They bought 'em up like crazy. Once the law went into effect, gun manufacturers tweaked the designs of their assault rifles such that they no longer fit the legal definition, yet still had the same capabilities. Gun lovers can appreciate this last bit as they just get the math of guns.

Point is, the assault rifle ban didn’t stop people from buying and owning assault rifles. It actually caused the general population to own way more of them than they probably would have otherwise. The gun lobby ought to relish the prospect of a Clinton presidency- she will inspire millions to buy yet more guns.

Still, if Hillary has an eye towards strategy in this race, she is gonna repeat the message that she is going to leave the 2nd Amendment intact and that she does not want your gun like it is a Muslim ban or a wall against Mexico. It isn’t that she stops ‘believing in’ science, of course she doesn’t, there are plenty of things that are all but scientific facts that the opposition would do well to acquaint themselves with. It isn’t that black lives don’t matter- of course they do, and if you don’t get that, you are a moron. It doesn’t mean that white evangelical lives don’t matter- of course they do, there is no question whatsoever. But it would be nice if evangelicals as a group would get a fucking education.

2

:confused:

3

It wouldn’t make a difference. If Hillary Clinton swore on her grandchild’s life that she wasn’t going to confiscate any guns, the second amendment fringe would just say it was a trick to lull their suspicions.

4

One word, dude: Slipper Slope!!

5

Sane people already know that Hillary isn’t going to destroy the Second Amendment, because sane people already know that the President can’t do that.

Even if the Democrats take both branches of Congress, calling a constitutional convention for the purpose of eliminating the Second Amendment is a highly risky procedure. It’s unlikely to get enough State votes to ratify the change plus it opens the door for other changes which would be unwelcome to the Democrats.

It’s possible that there might be some new regulations passed, if the Democrats sweep Congress and the Presidency, but most Americans agree with increased background checks. Sane people wouldn’t consider this “taking people’s guns.”

In the end, I agree with Little Nemo - nothing Hillary says will change the minds of people who think Hillary is coming for their guns.

6

I think it would be more in her interest to do a full counter attack to low information voters. That they are being lied to, that they are being needlesly frightened and incited, by evil advertisers looking out for a small buck, and by evil men looking for power and fame by exploiting the gullible. This cracked article, by a former writer churning out enraging clickbait articles for a pitiful wage, shows how that works.

7

You are really very badly wrong, because Hillary Clinton and Trump have both said that people should be denied their constitutional right to bear arms just for being on the No Fly List, which means denying them their constitutional rights without due process. Like “Assault Weapon” bans, it’s a completely moronic idea that sells well to stupid people who don’t understand the subject, who don’t realise that anyone can be put on the list for no reason whatsoever.

8

Responding to Trump’s shit puts her on the defensive and that’s what he wants. She should ignore him and keep saying what she’s been saying all along about gun control.

9

All Clinton wants is background checks and an assault weapon ban. Just like all she wanted was civil unions, for abortion to be safe, legal, and RARE, and no, we’d never ask for government funding, all reasonable people oppose that, right? and for taxes on the rich to be 39.6%.

One should always add “for now” to anything Democrats claim. Their positioning is strictly to appease the rubes around election time. Once they feel a little more confident they’ll get a lot more ambitious.

Clinton does not recognize an individual right to bear arms. She believes the Heller decision was wrongly decided. That means that you will get to keep your guns at her and her party’s pleasure.

10

There would be no reason to call a constitutional convention just to amend the constitution.

11

All it takes to rescind the 2nd amendment is to put a couple of liberal justices on SCOTUS who will just say that the 2nd amendment only protects the right to join a state militia.

12

What your comment assumes is that the judicial branch would reverse many of its rulings and become so corrupted that it attempts to rule by decree from the bench. This same group of justices could say that the first amendment only prohibits congress, not states, from suppressing speech or other civil liberties. Sure, they could do that, but they would quickly be discredited as an impartial institution and people would lose confidence in whatever verdicts it produces. At that point, I think you’d have numerous jurisdictions simply refusing to acknowledge the rulings of the court.

The Supreme Court is respected as a branch of government by both sides because, although it is not at all apolitical, it has been largely regarded as an institution that adheres to its constitutionally-mandated purpose. The day it behaves in a way that is contrary to that purpose is the day that it functions to exist with public support. That could also be said of the presidency and the legislative branch. That’s why the things that Donald Trump is saying are not in any way trivial laughing matters. He is taking the increasing lack of confidence that people have in our constitutionally created institutions, exploiting them for his own benefit (and others), and in the process quite likely further eroding confidence in these institutions. The end point of this, if it continues, is constitutional crisis and a state of national emergency – and things usually get pretty nasty at this stage.

The fact that the National Rifle Association stands behinds comments that not even subtly suggested that it would be permissible for gun owners to take the constitution into their own hands is a new low for an organization that is already way out of step with mainstream society. Most people in our society, even people who are skeptical of the NRA’s positions on firearms rights, believe that ordinary people should have the right to possess firearms to some degree. In other words, I would posit that even most liberals support the right of their republican neighbors to keep hunting rifles or even a handgun or two in their bedroom closet, provided they are reasonable and responsible with them. That is a mainstream position that makes the United States somewhat unique among nations. The irony here is that its obstinance and defiance after every mass shooting and now its embracing of a candidate who uses rhetoric to inspire violence is actually what will eventually push the mainstream to act overwhelmingly to shift its view and turn against it.

Hillary Clinton should continue to respect the mainstream view of most Americans that people, on some level, enjoy the right to keep and bear arms while simultaneously also acknowledging that that is not an absolute right, not even in the language of the Constitution. She should not budge from this position because for starters, it’s clear that the NRA and others wouldn’t trust her to begin with, but also for the fact that she needs to be the standard bearer for the views of the entire population in a nation that is political diverse.

13

No right is absolute except at the most fundamental level. If there is an individual right to bear arms, there is an individual right to bear arms. The government can control the type of arms and decide who may exercise that right based on things like criminal history and mental stability. But let’s remember our history here, since it wasn’t that long ago. Democrats have tried to ban gun possession in the past, back when courts allowed that sort of thing. They have not changed their stripes. They don’t just want the AR-15s. They want the handguns too.

14

I concede that it’s possible that we could see individual states or cities attempting to pass legislation that would restrict handgun possession, and I further concede two or more justices could somehow possibly overturn the court’s previous decision, but typically the courts adhere to their doctrine more often than not. I’m less convinced that the Courts would permit the congress to prohibit handguns, though. If we ever got to a point where there the majority of voters aggressively seeks to push back the current boundaries of firearms rights, at most I could see something like a national registry and the restriction of certain classes of weapons like AR-15s at the federal level, and perhaps some additional restrictions at the state level. We’ve been through such times in the past, and we didn’t have tyranny or anarchy.

Anyway, that’s my take. I always appreciate your voice of moderation, Adaher. We probably disagree on everything but I feel like you’re open to discussing anything and listening to alternative viewpoints. Keep it up, bro.

15

No of course she shouldn’t, there’s no upside.

I’m sure we’ll be spared the camo photo-op too. But I can’t wait to see what Trump does with his shootin’ photo-op. I don’t think they’re dumb enough to put him in a field with some good ol’ boys, although he’s got the hat for it.

It’ll probably be at a shooting range, and he’ll have a target with a picture of a terrorist on it and then another one with a female silhouette like the sign for a ladies room with a “CH” on it, and the next day he’ll say it doesn’t mean Crooked Hillary, it means Come Home. And then he’ll throw out twisted versions of a couple of gun nut memes, like “Gun owners are the REAL police in this country, they’re the ones keeping us safe until I get in!”

16

You’re right; my mistake. Congress just needs to vote on it, then the states ratify it.

The Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment in a way you dislike is not rescinding the Second Amendment.

But suppose Hillary took the OP’s advice and started pounding the message, “I don’t want your gun!” Would it change your opinion about Hillary’s intentions toward your gun?

17

Or they’d get offended. "Whaddya mean, you don’t want my gun? What the fuck is the matter with my gun? It’s not GOOD enough for ya? Well let me just tell you, sister, my gun is the finest piece of weaponry you will ever have the privilege of not prying from my cold dead fingers! bitch doesn’t think my gun is good enough to confiscate. Well, I’ll show HER! I’ll bring my gun to some OTHER country where they know what a gun that’s worth confiscating looks like! Then she’ll be sorry! She’ll be all ‘Ooh, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it! Come back and let me confiscate your gun!’ And I’ll be all ‘No way, lady, you had your chance and you blew it! I’m getting my gun confiscated by these guys!’ And she’ll be all ‘oh, boo hoo!’ Man, that’s gonna be SWEET!

18

Conservative courts adhere to precedent. Liberal courts adhere to precedent only as long as doctrine is liberal. Since quite a bit of conservative precedents have been set in the last couple of decades, I expect we’ll see a repeat of the New Deal court once liberals are a majority. All of a sudden all those old precedents will be overturned.

19

Interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean no individual right to bear arms is repeal by other means.

20

Poppycock. Until Heller, the militia rights only was the standard interpretation. Some act as if the first half of the amendment does not exist. Some cling to the myth that the militia means everybody. You have a right to bear arms when serving in the militia, meaning the National Guard these days. The “right” of individuals to buy weapons designed to murder people may be restricted by state, local, and federal regulations as soon as Heller moves into the ash pit of history next to Dred Scott.