Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

Well now I have been waiting for this one. Turns out others will pick up on this, and make it a likely issue for the next election cycle. Now Americans by all means ABSOLUTELY FORGET guns are the most heavily regulated industry in this country next to big pharma. Forget that we as a so called 'civilized' society have already outlawed the action of murder. No my fellow Americans Clinton, and her infinite wisdom is going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country. Because apparently after 80 years of gun control, and the laws that say a person can't shoot someone else. We need to do more!

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City

What difference does it make?

A few days earlier, she said in Hanover, N.H.: “We have to take on the gun lobby. . . . This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.”

What Clinton fails to see. What her supporters fail to see. Is that gun control created the so called gun lobby. It is irresponsible not to admit the epic failures of the past 80 years. That gun control doesn't work. Never will work. Because a small percentage of the population is NEVER going to follow those laws or the law that already covers murder.

Clinton’s comments could stoke millions of politically active gun owners, and Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, argued that the move was fraught with peril for her.

IF Clinton is dumb enough to go after guns?

She will seal her fate. They have been trying for the last 8 years culminating in the epic failure of Feinstein's bill.

They say the definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over, and over again expecting a different result.

Gun laws for over 80 years. Wants to write more!

That is insane.

from my cold dead hands! Molon labe!

a reply to: neo96

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City

When she becomes president, the war machine will start up again and the US shipments of arms will escalate. Meanwhile she talks against guns at home.

a reply to: neo96

She hates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

She won't honor, defend, protect those documents.

The queen will destroy them.

a reply to: beezzer

Yes she does!!!!

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

She wants to willfully violate Americans constitutional rights 1-10, and the 14th amendment!

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: neo96

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City

When she becomes president, the war machine will start up again and the US shipments of arms will escalate. Meanwhile she talks against guns at home.

We are already there.

While banning guns here at home, firing the men, and women in uniform the current guy is doing.

We are now EXPORTING more arms than ever.

a reply to: neo96

She makes her idiotic speeches surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards even though anyone that gets close to her is vetted beforehand.

Hypocritical bitch.

She deserves to see the inside of a jail cell for the rest of her life.

a reply to: butcherguy

She makes her idiotic speeches surrounded by gun-toting bodyguards even though anyone that gets close to her is vetted beforehand.

Absolutely true.

What she is pushing is selective disarmament. She, and other politician's on capitol shill will never give up their body guards guns.

a reply to: neo96

I hope she sticks to her guns on this because it will probably give Sanders a better chance. There's simply not enough liberals that are extremely anti-gun. It's not the buzz topic that politicians like to make it into but it doesn't seem to stop some of them from focusing on it as if the whole DNC hinged upon it.

It's sort of the democratic equivalent of the GOP's anti-gay stance where there's just not enough republicans who care that much about gay people yet some of them just keep talking about it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: beezzer

Yes she does!!!!

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

She wants to willfully violate Americans constitutional rights 1-10, and the 14th amendment!

The bit you've highlighted doesn't say the gov can't. It says the states can't do those things.
I haven't studied law, so i don't really know if that's right?

a reply to: EA006

The bit that was highlighted means according to the 14th amendment the respective states DO NOT have to enforce ANY law that abridges someone rights.

Gun control does that in a epic way.

the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

'

No ifs,ands or buts about it.

Although some people today like CLinton think gun ownership is a 'privilege' it isn't.

It is a clear right that has been spelled out in the bill of rights, and the 14th.

Kinda like the state, and police, and other federal government agencies are the 'married' couples.

The people have been reduced to LGBTS.

X has more rights than Y does.

Gun control deprives y of life, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, without due process of the law.

That last part means being taken to court, and crimes be PROVEN.

Which means I, and no other gun owner is responsible for mass shootings or the Holmes, and the Lanza's.

The people who commit that crime is, and gun control holds people who have done nothing what so ever responsible.

a reply to: Cuervo
Sanders speaks with a forked tongue about guns.... or he is terribly misinformed.
He says that he stands with sportsmen and gun owners. But he says that he supports banning semiautomatic firearms. Plenty of states allow for hunting with those awful semi auto 30 round clip magazine ghost guns.

Whether stupid or lying.... not what I want in a President.

I can't believe this animal is even on the ticket. She's a way left women who takes money from foreign interests that have the worst women's rights? The constitution is just in the way for democrats, it is the last thing holding them back from the great liberal utopia.
I really feel like this country have lost it's core values, or maybe Joe average isn't being heard.

I grew up around guns. Went hunting frequently with my dad, brothers and uncles. Having said that, I have no problem with guns or responsible people owning them, and believe that rights protected.

On the other hand, I also think the Brady Bill loophole is being used by some, not all, as a means to acquire weapons without a background check or recorded sale.

I'm not advocating for a weapons ban, however, leaving loopholes such as this one open, in my opinion, may give the idea that responsible gun owners, as I would assume most are, don't care that someone can acquire a weapon who legally can't purchase one otherwise using this process.

I could be completely wrong about this, but if gun owners don't try and help fix loopholes that enable illegal purchases, they'll keep labeling them as nuts or fanatics; further flaming the issue so too speak.

Common sense things can be done, as long as it doesn't infringe upon responsible gun ownership. If your taking a psychotropic drug with possible mind altering affects, should that person be allowed to buy a weapon, I would think not, at least at that time.

Like I said, I don't have an issue with people owning arms, but as responsible gun owners, how do we help prevent someone from acquiring a weapon that shouldn't have one.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Cuervo
Sanders speaks with a forked tongue about guns.... or he is terribly misinformed.
He says that he stands with sportsmen and gun owners. But he says that he supports banning semiautomatic firearms. Plenty of states allow for hunting with those awful semi auto 30 round clip magazine ghost guns.

Whether stupid or lying.... not what I want in a President.

I don't think it's something he feels strongly about it either way and hasn't made it part of his platform. I imagine he will be cornered into taking a more solid and informed stand in the coming months.

I imagine he'll probably be in the middle of the road like most moderate democrats and republicans (or politicians who just aren't very passionate about 2nd amendment either way).

a reply to: neo96

GOOD! This horsecrap will only win her votes in states she'd already have carried and which have the same limited number of electoral college votes whether 75% of the Californiacators vote for her or 85% do. Conversely, in "battleground" states like Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin, this position will lose her enough votes to likely prevent her from reaching office. Let her speak, and reserve the material until after she has the nomination, then all guns blazing!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Hillary does have to pander to her Liberal supporter base who may be concerned that she isn't left wing enough. Although it doesn't look like she will face any serious opposition in primary's she does have to ensure that die hard democrats turn out for her on election day. Since the GOP will settle on a throw away candidate for the 2016 election taking Gun Control at this stage is fairly low risk politically.

This is a song and dance pony show. None of this matters, what gets me is you all are going to take her seriously and delude yourselves into thinking any of this is relevant.

She'll only do what she's told, same as all the rest, cept the ones that won't be allowed to be elected anyway. This isn't a gun issue at all, it's a keep you all invested in the political delusions they want you sucked into. People need to take their damn blinders off.

Gun control, abortion, the death penalty, and a billion other things, all stuff people care about, all bull#, used to keep your asses divided and allowing the status quot to continue.

Hillary is irrelevant, Jeb is irrelevant, Obama is irrelevant, all pawns and puppets used by the same damn people to keep us divided and buying into the bull#.

The gun control will happen IF and only if it's what's been decided. You're all idiots if you think it has anything to do with your votes or who gets elected.

a reply to: Daedal

I'm not advocating for a weapons ban, however, leaving loopholes such as this one open, in my opinion, may give the idea that responsible gun owners, as I would assume most are, don't care that someone can acquire a weapon who legally can't purchase one otherwise using this process. 

Then you support violating my rights to bear arms freely without having my privacy intact. If it was meant to be infringed they would have said so. It was not and never should have been legislated in anyway to inhibit the procurement of arms.

But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.

For that MONSTER to even get away with saying something like that for those that have paid attention shows AGAIN how EVIL and DESPICABLE this creature really is...

What a disgusting hag...
"WHAT DOES IT MATTER AT THIS POINT?"