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

a reply to: neo96

Good, this can only turn out bad for her.

Good grief if either her or Bush become president, another 4 years of hell.

a reply to: yuppa

That's how you define arms. That is not how everyone else defines it. If your definition does not match my definition, but your definition is what is adhered to, then my 2nd amendment rights are being infringed upon.

Not everyone agrees on the definition or an arm and unfortunately that responsibility all too often lands in the lap of politicians.

You call it a circle jerk. I call it knowing that in the court of law terms must be clearly defined.

The 2nd amendment is not.

Speaking out in support of Gun Control for a Presidential Candidate or even a sitting President isn't anything new.

After he was shot, the TEA Party darling St Reagan was a huge supporter of gun control, eventually supporting passage of the Brady bill.

a reply to: Primordial

Why can't you clearly define it as it stands today, and then amend it as time progresses? Isn't that the system the founders left for us? We can amend the constitution to reflect society as it evolves or the need arises.

I don't know how much easier I can make this to understand. You and many others define "arms" as X and Y. Others define it as Y and Z. Even people within the pro-2nd crowd do not all agree on the definition.

But the politicians and bureaucrats have defined "arms" as A and B. Why do we leave the interpretation up to them? Shouldn't the constitution be the document we refer to on that?

Oh, we can't. It doesn't specify.

Again, it's only vague to those who want to restrict and twist words. It is not vague or ambiguous.

The 2nd amendment does not define arms. You have to go outside of the constitution to come to some sort of definition. That definition has been decided by politicians. Therefore, the 2nd amendment is not a right. It is a privilege at the whim of someone's interpretation.

Wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Primordial

Why can't you clearly define it as it stands today, and then amend it as time progresses? Isn't that the system the founders left for us? We can amend the constitution to reflect society as it evolves or the need arises.

I don't know how much easier I can make this to understand. You and many others define "arms" as X and Y. Others define it as Y and Z. Even people within the pro-2nd crowd do not all agree on the definition.

But the politicians and bureaucrats have defined "arms" as A and B. Why do we leave the interpretation up to them? Shouldn't the constitution be the document we refer to on that?

Oh, we can't. It doesn't specify.

Again, it's only vague to those who want to restrict and twist words. It is not vague or ambiguous.

The 2nd amendment does not define arms. You have to go outside of the constitution to come to some sort of definition. That definition has been decided by politicians. Therefore, the 2nd amendment is not a right. It is a privilege at the whim of someone's interpretation.

Wouldn't you agree?

I get what you're saying and I do agree to a point. The reason I say it is not vague is this .... the people who wish to restrict our rights know very well what the 2nd means and what it's words were trying to convey.

THEY JUST PLAY DUMB AND PRETEND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. They CLAIM it's too vague when they know damn well what it means. They do this to manipulate people who are ignorant of the true intent. They don't CARE what it means, they want it gone. That is why I said that educating people on, not only the 2nd, but also true crime statistics and how they are manipulated to fit an agenda should be an endeavor. No matter how you define it, someone will say you really meant something else and idiots will believe them.

I feel you, I really do, and I understand your reasoning. But, think of what you just proposed. Amending the constitution to account for changing weaponry? We can't even get them to admit it's a universal right in the first place. Can you imagine trying to get them to amend it to let us have the latest "killing machine", as the media would put it. It would be damn near impossible.

I don't think there is a simple solution. I suppose I can say I agree with you on principle but when I think about it I believe it would wind up biting us the end. Start with educating people. Take them shooting. Take that fear of guns away and you've won half the battle. The less fear the harder it will be for them to pass these unconstitutional laws. And the easier it would be to repeal those already on the books.

a reply to: neo96

I just got made a naturalized American citizen yesterday,part of the interview asks would i defend the constitution and it's a very serious question asked solemnly by the agent,my answer was absolutely so i don't understand how these loon ball progressives want to strip it away when so many Americans and establishment institutions believe in it so strongly and rightly so.
I had a hard time to understand why so many Americans were into their guns so much having come from a country where even the Police are not armed but now i get it,it's what stands in the way of this beautiful country being taken over by a nut job tyrannical government and it's why the right to bear arms was put in the constitution in the first place.

And to be perfectly honest i cannot stand this fossilized relic from the Jurassic era, i don't understand how such a lying power hungry hag can even be in the running for President.

a reply to: Primordial

I guess we do agree for the most part. Education is needed to combat the anti-gun folks.

My biggest fear is that we continue to allow our right to be defined from outside of the constitution and we need to stop that. There is no better way to do that than to sit down at the table as adults and hash it out.

Unfortunately, most pro-2nd people are not willing or able to join that debate because they are unable to actually articulate what their right even means. They cannot even agree on what the intent was and what arms is defined as.

a reply to: southbeach

i don't understand how these loon ball progressives want to strip it away when so many Americans and establishment institutions believe in it so strongly and rightly so.

If you thinks it's progressives that want to strip away our 2nd amendment right, you're incorrect.

Many progressives, and even socialists such as myself, take our 2nd amendment right very seriously and stand next to all others to defend that right.

Those that want to strip our rights are not of a certain political ideology. They are of many political beliefs. They fear firearms. They fear what people may do when armed and have no respect for our 2nd amendment right because they don;t believe it applies to them.

The first step to defeating an enemy is knowing whom the enemy is.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah, I believe education is the key. Not just on the second but on the entire constitution. I know kids in school and they are barely taught about it, much less what it means and why it says what it says.

Good debating/conversing with you.

I hope Hillary gets elected and forces the military to take away all guns in America. If you want to hunt, fine, go to the police station, sign out a slip of rental and return it after hunting. As we all know, criminals must be allowed to keep their guns. Can you imagine all gangbangers not having weapons, my God, American streets will fall under the control of the UN.

a reply to: introvert

I disagree with your assumption maybe it's the way i wrote it.
You may be a genuine progressive but this lunacy is coming from so called progressives,the idiot left.
They are using the progressive label to forward their agenda.
The same people fronting themselves as liberal free thinking people but they are far far from it,they are tyrannical anti American self loathing bigots that uphold the " moral narrative" and if you disagree with the narrative on offer then you are a racist or a sexist or whatever relevant buzz word takes their fancy.

a reply to: southbeach

I'm not a progressive. I'm a socialist. Progressives are, to me anyway, just lite-republicans that want a little social justice and don't really care about anything else.

What you call progressives could incorporate many people on the left and right. There are many on the right as well that sy and act as you described.

a reply to: introvert

Please can you also define how you are a socialist?
What are your views on what America should be under your socialist ideology,not having a go at you mate,i just wondered.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: introvert

Please can you also define how you are a socialist?
What are your views on what America should be under your socialist ideology,not having a go at you mate,i just wondered.

I have no problem answering your question.

I believe that as our technologies and capabilities grow, we are easily able to provide for the entire population the basic necessities of life. We can feed everyone, we can house everyone and we can give everyone free medical care. The
"costs" of which are easily absorbed if our government and mindset are properly prioritized.

Our current structure is designed with only profit-motive as it's highest goal. Money matters more than anything else. That is not very "mature" of us in this day and age of advanced technology and medicine.

Why do we subsidize corn growers to harvest corn for ethanol, or even worse, to not plant crops at all? We could feed people with that? Why do we allow the complete scam that is insurance companies to profit 30-40% when we could easily take care of everyone at much lower costs?

I could go on for quite some time on this issue, but I'll just stop at saying that I believe we could do all of this within the confines of the constitution and still allow people to be free.

originally posted by: musicismagic
I hope Hillary gets elected and forces the military to take away all guns in America. If you want to hunt, fine, go to the police station, sign out a slip of rental and return it after hunting. As we all know, criminals must be allowed to keep their guns. Can you imagine all gangbangers not having weapons, my God, American streets will fall under the control of the UN.

That would solve all the problems.

But I bet it takes 50 years and kills millions.

a reply to: introvert

Pretty much a normal ideology then as you have expressed it.
Pro life and pro humanity.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: yuppa

That's how you define arms. That is not how everyone else defines it. If your definition does not match my definition, but your definition is what is adhered to, then my 2nd amendment rights are being infringed upon.

Not everyone agrees on the definition or an arm and unfortunately that responsibility all too often lands in the lap of politicians.

You call it a circle jerk. I call it knowing that in the court of law terms must be clearly defined.

The 2nd amendment is not.

HEre si the dictionary meaning concerning weapons/arm from cambridge.

arm verb [T] (PROVIDE WEAPONS)

› to provide yourself or others with a weapon or weapons:
He armed himself with a baseball bat before going outside.

SO according to the dictionary Your rights are being infringed. And a socialist eh? were done then cause ive made my point and i wont argue with a socialist. its liek arguing with a wall.

a reply to: yuppa

If our right was well defined and set in stone, why do you have to go to an outside source to define an arm? In any legal document, they painstakingly make sure that specific terms are defined from the outset to ensure that there is no room for confusion. Why can't we do that with the most important document in history?

And a socialist eh? were done then cause ive made my point and i wont argue with a socialist. its liek arguing with a wall.

Are you afraid of socialists? Or are you afraid of what you've been told? Interesting no matter the answer.

I'm quite open to all opinions and ideas. But I also stand firm when I believe I have the basis to do so. You believe I am wrong on my stance in this case. I respect that. I believe you are wrong because you continue to reach beyond the constitution to validate your position, yet at the same time claim that the 2nd amendment is quite clear.

That's a contradictory argument.

Let me ask you a question: Why can I not purchase a fully-automatic firearm?

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: introvert

Pretty much a normal ideology then as you have expressed it.
Pro life and pro humanity.

For the most part, yes. That sort of stance used to be considered a fairly reasonable and moderate position, but the world has changed and it has now become an "extreme" of sorts.

I'm fine with that. I have no problem holding my own.

Removed because Im tired of beating my head against the wall talking to people who are intentionally stupider than anyone else on this planet can possibly be.(if i didnt mention your name Im not talking about you)