I’ve been telling my gun owner friends this exact thing for a long time and they keep pointing to that empty seat on the supreme court. Trump may not nominate someone because of their position on guns but he is more likely to nominate someone who just happens to be less hostile to guns than whoever Hillary would appoint.
Yes because the rabid anti-gun folks will never vote Republican and can’t stay away from the pols because it causes physical pain t them when a Republican wins.
Well, she should get more liberal on that other stuff, no more sucking up to plutocats and big money who recovered from the 2008 crash within a year or two wile telling us we can’t afford to make college more affordable for middle class Americans
And SCOTUS also has said that moderate gun control laws are within the 2nd Ad.
So, the Dems should ignore the 50% of the American public who vote Democratic and are in favor of some sort of gun control, to chase Gun lovers who will always, 100% vote GOp no matter what? :dubious:
Well, its apples and oranges but if we applied First amendment standards of review to the second amendment, most gun laws would fail. The supreme court has avoided articulating a standard of review for the second amendment but many constitutional experts think that the same or similar standard would be appropriate.
That’s only because she was too ignorant of gun control issues to know wtf she was talking about. Because she either had no clue wtf Australia’s buyback program was and she was just saying shit that would sound good to an anti-gun crowd (which I believe is the case) or she actually was signaling that she would confiscate guns.
The fact that she would support a voluntary gun buyback program just reinforces the notion that she is fucking clueless about guns but decided to make it a central part of her primary campaign because it was the only issue where she could get to the left of Bernie Sanders.
And in the process she probably alienated more than the margin she lost by in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. Were there other things that could have saved her campaign? Sure!!! It was death by a thousand cuts. All of them self inflicted and any one of them would could have made the difference between winning and losing to a bobblehead.
Really? Where do they say that abortion is an explicit constitutional right?
The second amendment is right there in the constitution. It is one of the enumerated rights in the bill of rights. The right to an abortion is based on a “penumbra” I happen to be moderately pro-choice but as a lawyer, Roe v. Wade is a horribly written and rationalized opinion. I don’t know any lawyer that read the opinion and thought it wasn’t a result oriented decision.
“nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms”
This does not mean that moderate gun control laws are within the 2nd amendment. If the stuff Hillary wants is “mild” then this stuff is nowhere near “moderate”
But yes, the second amendment like all rights are subject to restrictions.
No, they should ignore the 5% of Democrats who really give a shit about guns but will vote Democrat every time anyway in order to placate gun lovers who will probably vote Republican if they can be bothered to vote at all. Staying out of gun control is a form of gun nut voter suppression.
It may taste a bit sour in their mouths when they find out who’s really going to get fucked by the Trump administration. (In their tax bills if nothing else.)
We’ve kicked this around and decided to mod-note it, BPC. Please don’t attack other posters or imply they derive any form of gratification from their political beliefs.
Whatever one’s view on guns, this IMO is manifestly true. Because Clinton was an inherently weak candidate she struggled against even Bernie Sanders and had to find some issue to get to the left of him with the Democratic base. His background in a quirky, very liberal but pro-gun, state seemed to offer that tactical opportunity. A better candidate with magnetism could have stuck more to an electability argument and not gone as far to the left to beat him. But she had to pander, with a gun position that is a turn off for a much bigger number of general election voters than the number who would be turned off if you simply didn’t make an issue of somebody like Sanders not being anti-gun enough.
So while the merits and politics of the issue play a role, some of it on every issue comes back to Hillary’s basic lack of appeal personally, an inherently weak candidate with a tendency to ‘miraculously’ be beaten by or seriously struggle v candidates ‘coming out of nowhere’ (Obama, Sanders, Trump).
You should take away that compromising on that issue will give you the chance to win on “everything else” – and that you seem willing to overlook “everything else” for the sake of backing a candidate who rubs those single-issue voters the wrong way.