Here Is Why Whoever Is The GOP Nominee Will Eventually Be Supported !

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: UKTruth
This is pretty good ammunition for Trump (no pun intended). If Clinton is elected, guns will be confiscated. It's now pretty clear.
The air of opportunism at Scalia's death was in pretty poor taste too.

I must have completely blacked out there for a second!
At what point has anyone said that guns will be confiscated?
I would really be interested to see that, seeing as no politician has said that, and certainly not Hillary.

This is the same irrational nonsense we see every time on this debate. People call themselves "responsible gun owners", then absolutely reject any potential for sensible gun laws - and often with this exact same kind of screaming idiocy...

"They be coming to take our GUNZZZZ!!!!!!!11111"

No, they're not, sensible people are demanding sensible laws which allow YOU TO OWN YOUR LEGAL GUN, while PREVENTING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY ILL from getting their dangerous hands on one.

Sensible people realize that guns are not a problem.

Liberals see them as a great evil and will dismantle the 2nd amendment piece by piece, if and when the Supreme Court is corrupted with another liberal.
You act as if such measures have never been implemented before. Didn't Judge Scalia himself provide the casting vote to overturn the DC gun ban that had stood for 30 years?

Words fail me. Once again we see demonization of 'Liberals' as if the very word is dirty. I shall ignore than and move on to point out that (once again) the Second Amendment refers to a 'well-regulated militia'.
I am not against guns. My wife's cousin lives in Idaho, in a place where bears roam. She has a gun and I know damn well why. Makes sense. Does she have an assault rifle that shoot eleventy billion rounds a minute? No. That would be stupid. She defends herself, she's not out to storm Omaha Beach.
We live in the UK. Ok, we don't have bears here. But neither have we had a major mass shooting for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. How many happen in the USA every year?
This is what I want: sensible gun laws in the USA that are practical. Let's stop guns falling into the hands of lunatics and criminals. Let's stop maniacs walking into schools with assault rifles and shooting people. Do you have even the faintest idea how the rest of the world views the USA? As a bunch of trigger happy maniacs. My wife is pro-gun but she wants common sense in her country.

Do some research on violent crime and murder. Start with the correlation with population density and poverty and you will quickly realise that the UK and US are completely different and any comparison is spurious. . You will also find that murder rates controlled for these two factors are actually higher in the UK. I have lived in both counties and except for certain pockets of the US, the UK is as or more dangerous.

No, sorry, you don't get to avoid the point I raised. I mentioned mass shootings.

I do get to avoid it, because I choose to. I usually do that with spurious points.

Avoiding my point yet again I see. What a shocker.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: UKTruth
This is pretty good ammunition for Trump (no pun intended). If Clinton is elected, guns will be confiscated. It's now pretty clear.
The air of opportunism at Scalia's death was in pretty poor taste too.

I must have completely blacked out there for a second!
At what point has anyone said that guns will be confiscated?
I would really be interested to see that, seeing as no politician has said that, and certainly not Hillary.

This is the same irrational nonsense we see every time on this debate. People call themselves "responsible gun owners", then absolutely reject any potential for sensible gun laws - and often with this exact same kind of screaming idiocy...

"They be coming to take our GUNZZZZ!!!!!!!11111"

No, they're not, sensible people are demanding sensible laws which allow YOU TO OWN YOUR LEGAL GUN, while PREVENTING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY ILL from getting their dangerous hands on one.

Sensible people realize that guns are not a problem.

Liberals see them as a great evil and will dismantle the 2nd amendment piece by piece, if and when the Supreme Court is corrupted with another liberal.
You act as if such measures have never been implemented before. Didn't Judge Scalia himself provide the casting vote to overturn the DC gun ban that had stood for 30 years?

Words fail me. Once again we see demonization of 'Liberals' as if the very word is dirty. I shall ignore than and move on to point out that (once again) the Second Amendment refers to a 'well-regulated militia'.
I am not against guns. My wife's cousin lives in Idaho, in a place where bears roam. She has a gun and I know damn well why. Makes sense. Does she have an assault rifle that shoot eleventy billion rounds a minute? No. That would be stupid. She defends herself, she's not out to storm Omaha Beach.
We live in the UK. Ok, we don't have bears here. But neither have we had a major mass shooting for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. How many happen in the USA every year?
This is what I want: sensible gun laws in the USA that are practical. Let's stop guns falling into the hands of lunatics and criminals. Let's stop maniacs walking into schools with assault rifles and shooting people. Do you have even the faintest idea how the rest of the world views the USA? As a bunch of trigger happy maniacs. My wife is pro-gun but she wants common sense in her country.

Do some research on violent crime and murder. Start with the correlation with population density and poverty and you will quickly realise that the UK and US are completely different and any comparison is spurious. . You will also find that murder rates controlled for these two factors are actually higher in the UK. I have lived in both counties and except for certain pockets of the US, the UK is as or more dangerous.

No, sorry, you don't get to avoid the point I raised. I mentioned mass shootings.

I do get to avoid it, because I choose to. I usually do that with spurious points.

Avoiding my point yet again I see. What a shocker.

I can see you learn fast

a reply to: LDragonFire

There is also plenty of evidence that once a republican is elected they won't do there job.

I disagree.

In my opinion the job of Republicans is to stop Democrats from passing stupid laws. The entire system is working as intended.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I will point out again that the second amendment protects a right that is implicit.

The words mean what they say.

The famous Heller judgement says that right is not unlimited.

Automatic weapons are restricted. The eleventy billion round assault rifle is needless hyperbole.

The Constitution can be amended and has been before.

Good luck with that.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: UKTruth
This is pretty good ammunition for Trump (no pun intended). If Clinton is elected, guns will be confiscated. It's now pretty clear.

No politician in their right mind would destroy a 16 billion dollar industry. Not even Hilldog.
To big to fail ring a bell?
www.ibisworld.com...
www.shootingindustry.com...

Yup.

I've been told for the last eight years that "they're coming for mah GUNZ," and when it doesn't happen the goalposts are moved.

I know - I know - I'm just a naysayer, or a paid government shill (I wish - hit me up, NSA), or whatever it may be.

But what stands to reason is that I've never believed in the "they're coming for the guns," ridiculousness. Gun manufacturers have INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY under the Obama administration, but for some reason:

Higher gun sales/profit margins = federal regulations stripping Americans right to own a weapon

I'm one of the only people on ATS who stands by my belief that the U.S. Government is not daft enough to attempt something such as this. Albeit - there certainly have been attempts at limiting firearms, but honestly folks... get # real.

The government should be more afraid of 350+ million REGISTERED (let alone unregistered) firearms in the hands of citizens, not 300+ million citizens with a plethora of weaponary being afraid of the government.

But I digress, for the big bad government boogeyman is gonna take your fwedumbs!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Does she have an assault rifle that shoot eleventy billion rounds a minute?

You do understand that very, very few people do legally have actual automatic weapons in private ownership, right?

Assault rifles are semi-automatic just like pretty much most other modern small arms that are privately available for purchase. Perhaps you object to the fact that some manufacturers create aesthetic packages for them that make them look scary?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Does she have an assault rifle that shoot eleventy billion rounds a minute?

You do understand that very, very few people do legally have actual automatic weapons in private ownership, right?

Assault rifles are semi-automatic just like pretty much most other modern small arms that are privately available for purchase. Perhaps you object to the fact that some manufacturers create aesthetic packages for them that make them look scary?

Auto-rifles and semi-auto rifles are essentially the same thing.

(Apply this "logic" to when people equate Socialism to Communism - see how silly it all is?)

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Gun rights activists just need to show this clip, and everybody will come around,

Yeah, I guess there is big chunk of deluded low information voters who still believe Trump will actually do what he says.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Gun rights activists just need to show this clip, and everybody will come around,

Yeah, I guess there is big chunk of deluded low information voters who still believe Trump will actually do what he says.

More and more people are becoming low information voters every day. I guess they are forgetting stuff

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: UKTruth
This is pretty good ammunition for Trump (no pun intended). If Clinton is elected, guns will be confiscated. It's now pretty clear.
The air of opportunism at Scalia's death was in pretty poor taste too.

I must have completely blacked out there for a second!
At what point has anyone said that guns will be confiscated?
I would really be interested to see that, seeing as no politician has said that, and certainly not Hillary.

This is the same irrational nonsense we see every time on this debate. People call themselves "responsible gun owners", then absolutely reject any potential for sensible gun laws - and often with this exact same kind of screaming idiocy...

"They be coming to take our GUNZZZZ!!!!!!!11111"

No, they're not, sensible people are demanding sensible laws which allow YOU TO OWN YOUR LEGAL GUN, while PREVENTING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY ILL from getting their dangerous hands on one.

Sensible people realize that guns are not a problem.

Liberals see them as a great evil and will dismantle the 2nd amendment piece by piece, if and when the Supreme Court is corrupted with another liberal.
You act as if such measures have never been implemented before. Didn't Judge Scalia himself provide the casting vote to overturn the DC gun ban that had stood for 30 years?

Words fail me. Once again we see demonization of 'Liberals' as if the very word is dirty. I shall ignore than and move on to point out that (once again) the Second Amendment refers to a 'well-regulated militia'.
I am not against guns. My wife's cousin lives in Idaho, in a place where bears roam. She has a gun and I know damn well why. Makes sense. Does she have an assault rifle that shoot eleventy billion rounds a minute? No. That would be stupid. She defends herself, she's not out to storm Omaha Beach.
We live in the UK. Ok, we don't have bears here. But neither have we had a major mass shooting for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. How many happen in the USA every year?
This is what I want: sensible gun laws in the USA that are practical. Let's stop guns falling into the hands of lunatics and criminals. Let's stop maniacs walking into schools with assault rifles and shooting people. Do you have even the faintest idea how the rest of the world views the USA? As a bunch of trigger happy maniacs. My wife is pro-gun but she wants common sense in her country.

Do some research on violent crime and murder. Start with the correlation with population density and poverty and you will quickly realise that the UK and US are completely different and any comparison is spurious. . You will also find that murder rates controlled for these two factors are actually higher in the UK. I have lived in both counties and except for certain pockets of the US, the UK is as or more dangerous.

No, sorry, you don't get to avoid the point I raised. I mentioned mass shootings.

No, YOU don't get to dictate how people respond on these forums. This is why the title Liberal has become a dirty word because of things like the very post you made.

a reply to: RomeByFire

In the end, I have the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the constitution. The same document guarantees me the right to be secure in my person and property.

It doesn't matter whether we are discussing socialism OR communism. Both violate my right to be secure in my person and property as both demand state ownership of property and without security of personal property, I cannot have security of person. And as firearms are property and the state is given ownership of the means of production which means ownership of property ... I cannot have the guarantee that I will have the right to ownership of arms.

Hence, under socialism or communism either one, my rights are either negated outright or under constant threat by the state which takes my rights unto itself.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: RomeByFire

In the end, I have the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the constitution. The same document guarantees me the right to be secure in my person and property.

It doesn't matter whether we are discussing socialism OR communism. Both violate my right to be secure in my person and property as both demand state ownership of property and without security of personal property, I cannot have security of person. And as firearms are property and the state is given ownership of the means of production which means ownership of property ... I cannot have the guarantee that I will have the right to ownership of arms.

Hence, under socialism or communism either one, my rights are either negated outright or under constant threat by the state which takes my rights unto itself.

I hear you, but I am sure the residents of Washington DC thought the same in 1975. It took them 33 years to get their constitutional rights back, no? Whilst at the time the House and Senate were dominated by DEMs, they would not be considered socialist or communist.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Gun rights activists just need to show this clip, and everybody will come around,

Yeah, I guess there is big chunk of deluded low information voters who still believe Trump will actually do what he says.

Trump has a licences to carry in New York, and his ideology on gun control is because of terrorism, Americans should be able to carry guns to shoot back, when terrorism erupts at the local level, he has quoted this numerous times and given examples around the world.

Hillary ideology is just make them harder to get for everybody, but criminals and terrorists will get them anyway, illegally.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Gun rights activists just need to show this clip, and everybody will come around,

Yeah, I guess there is big chunk of deluded low information voters who still believe Trump will actually do what he says.

Trump has a licences to carry in New York, and his ideology on gun control is because of terrorism, Americans should be able to carry guns to shoot back, when terrorism erupts at the local level, he has quoted this numerous times and given examples around the world..

What a hopelessly naive position. Trump would completely reverse position in thirty seconds if he thought that would help him get elected.

His own campaign manager is telling the RNC behind closed doors that it's all an act. Gun rights is one of those manufactured and irrelevant wedge issues--forget that.

Look at something important he's talking about--free trade treaties. He's already laying plans to flip flop on that and people are apparently too stupid to see it.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Donald Trump is a prime example of the power of the media and how ignorant the majority of the electorate is ready to believe any thing a slick huckster presents.
Trump is a genius at knowing just the right points to lure in the unsuspecting then flip flop into his hidden agenda....what ever that is.

I'm astonished at how usually reasonable people can be so influenced by a cult of personality.

HL Mencken nailed it....

no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american people

a reply to: DelMarvel

It's true, he might flip and flop on some issues, but before he was ever running this IS his core ideology from 1988, he hasn't changed the core basics from way back then.

We have become the nation they went to war with to become free from

Wow, that's a pretty salient point there....

To be fair though, it started for basically the same reason the Civil War did....

Their voices weren't being heard or counted...even though they paid their taxes.

Something to think about, I'd imagine......