( – and a couple of dozen additional ‘HILLARY IS BAD AND WRONG’ posts that follow --)
Wow, you guys are still really worried about December 19, eh?
Why would we be worried? Trump’s going to with the electoral college vote with ease. Democrats are just violating another norm that they’ll probably wish they hadn’t later.
That’s going to be a tough sell for Democrats, as well as dangerous to their overall strategy.
“This Constitutional right is up to the states, but that one is up to the Supreme Court.” How do we know that gun rights are the first kind, but abortion or same-sex marriage are the second? Just because the Dems don’t want to talk about it?
What do they do when some blue state restricts guns and the case gets appealed in federal court?
Regards,
Shodan
This is a lot of speculation. Do you have any evidence?
I hope this is hyperbole, because if you are serious it’s not even close to reality.
Practical realities should be irrelevant when it comes to civil rights. I too am concerned about federal gun laws but for different reasons, but I’d sure be pleased at the outcome if there was national reciprocity if only so NJ, NY, and CA can be forced to recognize the right.
What do you base this on, exactly - a combination of wishful thinking and a belief that people telling you they voted and know people who voted in a way that doesn’t fit your belief are lying? And where do you get an anti-gun 50% anyway? Nowhere near 50% of the country supports Clinton-level gun control, like a complete ban on handguns and using firearms for self-defense for ordinary people.
A complete ban on private ownership of handguns and complete ban on ordinary people having firearms available for self-defense is not a ‘mild’ anti-gun stance no matter how much you try to claim it is. That is what she supported, both by praising the DC laws and by opposing the Heller decision which only prohibits such sweeping bans and explicitly does not prevent things like background checks or licensing.
It still amazes me that you stick to calling a complete ban on private ownership of handguns and complete ban on ordinary people having firearms available for self-defense as ‘mild’.
Trump made a single offhand comment in an interview that he wasn’t opposed to the war. Clinton used her elected position as a Senator to enable the war to happen. Those are not even in the same ballpark - one said ‘I guess so’ in an interview, one used her power as an elected official to make the war happen. Both parties started the war. If the Democrats voted against the war then I would be willing to accept the claim that it was a GOP war, but Democrats like Clinton overwhelmingly voted for it, so they also get to share the credit for it. If they didn’t want credit for starting the war, they shouldn’t have voted in favor of starting the war, plain and simple.
No, if you actually care about peace in the middle east over other issues, then you vote for someone who actually supports it instead of either of the two candidates who oppose it, or stay home. You know, like the Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters did. Or like the people who voted for Obama but didn’t vote for Clinton did. The Democrats are not entitled to anyone’s vote, but the party and people like you keep acting like they are and losing elections because of it, like in 2000, 2004, and probably would have in 2008 and 2012 if Obama hadn’t made his own campaign team and forced the issue.
And if you really feel like voting for the lesser of two evils, you have to compare the candidate who supports threatening and committing acts of war against a nuclear power to the candidate who proposes being friendly with them. And the candidate who voted for the Iraq war, enabling it to happen, with the candidate who offhandedly said he wasn’t opposed to it in a single interview at time. If you’re judging only on war in the middle east and risk of nuclear war, Trump actually comes out far ahead of Clinton.
That’s a poor attempt at a cite for something you can’t support. What do you think it says?
I asked earlier: Do you think gun motivated Trump voters and gun motivated Clinton folks who chose not to vote or vote for someone else was less than 10K in Michigan?
The takeaway isn’t to soften Clinton’s stance on guns because no one would believe it. The takeaway is to stop running anti-gun candidates.
Do you have a cite that Clinton supports that, other than some old off hand remarks?
Here are her positions:
Clinton proposes that the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 should be reinstated.
Tighten Background checks.
repeal the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
Clintons vote did not “enable” the war, 77 senators voted Aye.
True, Trumps support of the war was only a statement. But his** party started the war, started it to enrich their cronies.**
The Jill Stein and Gary Johnson voters , and the ones who stayed home- just made sure Trump won. A huge Loss on the anti-war front.
You have to compare the candidate who supports threatening and committing acts of war against a nuclear power- which was Trump.
Those polls show clearly that Dems overwhelmingly support some sort of Gun Control while Repubs do not.
Possibly. Doubtless some single issues voters held their nose and voted for Trump as they thought Hillary, like Obama was “gonna take their guns away”.
Sure, lets pander to the 50% of Americans who vote GOP, and ignore the 50% of American who vote Democratic. :rolleyes:
I do wish Hillary hadnt had a anti-gun plank. But that plank was mild, and didnt contribute to her loss.
Cite? I missed that part of the campaign.
He said that he wants Iranian boats that give us the finger – I guess sort of like that famous scene in Top Gun that we all laughed at – to be “shot out of the water.”
Little flippant, sure, but not exactly hyperbole.
Are you saying that there are no restrictions on the first amendment? Now, I will admit that it would be hard to compare restriction to restriction, decide how to score or wight each one, and come to a conclusion as to which is more restricted, but you cannot deny that there are in fact quite a number of things you can’t say, and times and places you cant say even more.
I can be sued for libel, if I say something damaging about someone, but I can’t get into any trouble at all if I leave my gun out where it is easily stolen, and used in a crime.
I can be charged with inciting a riot if were to rile people up into committing violence, but I can get into absolutely no trouble for selling a gun to someone who has nefarious plans for it.
I can get into trouble for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, if I say certain things to them, but if I leave my gun out, and they kill themselves accidentally, I get into no trouble at all.
This is social, but I have had people tell me that they have the right to bring their gun into my house, and that I am violating the second amendment if I don’t let them. These are the same people that control the discussion in their houses, and will “violate the first amendment” to at least the same extent that I “violate” the second when I don’t allow them to bring in a loaded gun. (I am fully aware that there are no constitutional protections on private domiciles, unfortunately, there are pro-gun people who are not.)
Now, am I trying to actually make the concrete claim that one is more restricted than the other? I probably shouldn’t, as there are too many arbitrary points to discuss to even come close to deciding if the claim has merit. But at the same time, I don’t know that you can make the claim that the second amendment is more restricted than the first.
We know that Clinton received significantly less votes than Obama in the 3 key states that she lost. Those three states could have flipped the results of the election. But you say with confidence that her position on guns had nothing to do with the reduced turnout numbers? The evidence you present is…crickets.
Democrats as a whole are pretty anti-gun. I am actually almost a pariah among my liberal friends because I am pretty much just for some level of registration and training for gun owners, but I pretty much support people’s right to own what makes them feel safe.
Running pro-gun candidates is just not going to work with the democratic party. Clinton was about as soft as she could be on guns without alienating the base.
So, you are saying that the takeaway is to throw the democratic base under the bus in the futile hopes of picking up a few votes from the pro-gun side of the aisle. I don’t think that will work. A Pro-gun candidate would not do well in the primaries. It was one of Bernie’s biggest weaknesses.
Even if the democrats did this, what are the chances you think, that the pro-gun voter will vote for the democrat?
Can you say with confidence that her position on guns had anything to do with the reduced turnout numbers?
I showed that Dem voters overwhelmingly support her stated positions on gun control.
Hardly crickets. :dubious:
One of the reasons I was hesitant about voting for Obama in 2012 was that he was doing a lot to expand and maintain executive powers with little to no oversight from other branches of the government. For example, in the 2008 campaign he talked a lot about Bush’s torture policies, but once in office he made no attempt to prosecute anyone for implementing and carrying out those policies (making it clear that the president can torture people without the president or torturers risking any punishment), and apparently continued the practice of transferring prisoners to governments that do use torture with a wink and nod. Same thing with agencies like the NSA spying on American citizens, and other similar issues.
Now that he’s handing the presidency over to someone who has very little restraint and apparently no concern for how history views him, I think he probably regrets setting such broad precedents on the acceptability of President-directed torture, extra-judicial imprisonment, and domestic spying.
On torture, Obama's hands aren't entirely clean (Note that’s MSNBC, not Breibart or Fox).
Clinton was in favor of a complete ban on handguns and a complete ban on having guns in condition for self-defense. That’s not ‘soft on guns’, that’s a position so radical that DrDeth’s surveys don’t bother to ask if anyone supports it. You can keep repeating that myth if you want, but it doesn’t change the reality of what she supported.
again:
Do you have a cite that Clinton supports that, other than some old off hand remarks?
Here are her positions:
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-...ontrol-2016-10
*Clinton proposes that the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 should be reinstated.
Tighten Background checks.
repeal the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,
*
Here’s more:
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
*Q: Both you and Sen. Obama, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual’s right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns. Why don’t you emphasize that now?
CLINTON: I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people. We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling & the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.
Let states & cities determine local gun laws
Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?
A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to is before the Supreme Court.
Q: But what do you support?
A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?
A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to] come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.
Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?
A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.*
I can’t say that with confidence - that’s why I haven’t made that claim.
A general poll not related to MI, WI, or PN is an irrelevant distraction. Calling it crickets is being generous because at least that leaves the door open for something, rather than something clearly not on point.