2nd amendment erosion. Voting democrat

Is it just me? Anyone else noticed that both candidates on the democratic side want to change the laws to our 2nd amendment? No one finds both these two agendas terrifying?

Both Bernie and Clinton have spoken out against gun violence. I honestly don't understand why an American would pwrfer to erode the 2nd amendment. Water down, or call it whatever you want.

This will hurt the countries militias all around the states. I really do believe a lot of militias have the american public on mind in case of invasion or any other terror attack.

Now this ugly, the 3 choices that we have.

But if you feel safe enough to fight on your own I just would like some of uou to weigh out the pros and cons.

I use to vote democrat. I'm considering repub. And i might not vote at all

a reply to: Jordan River

Which part of the second amendment are they going to change? I missed that.

Change, reform.

Call it whatever.


Here's bern

Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.

Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.

Clinton

Hillary will:

Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.

Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”

If you want to check more out i suggest using google. Too disgusted with everyone to honestly get on any hype train

a reply to: Jordan River

Which part do you not like? I am not sure which part of his plan waters down the 2nd.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Jordan River

Which part do you not like? I am not sure which part of his plan waters down the 2nd.

All of them.

Because the end goal is to disarm America.

Think death by a thousand paper cuts.

Because as should be obvious, laws won't stop criminals, and if allowed, this won't be the last time they cut more out.

a reply to: Jordan River

Yep, it certainly does...

“It does strange things to you to realize that the conservative establishment is forcing you to be a progressive liberal fighter for universal rights.”
― Brandon Sanderson, Perfect State

“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
― Joseph Sobran

The cracks are showing, the wall is falling fast.

a reply to: Sargeras

Well, it takes three legs of the government to do that.

You and others are convinced that disarmament is going to happen. How? Will they come to our homes and remove them? Will they demand citizens to turn them in? Either of those would be impossible. So, then what would the government do? Bomb our habitats then send in the military to get the guns? Send in the drones? Oh, I know, maybe they have been feeding our soldiers GMO food that turns them against their family and friends, to go get the guns.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Sargeras

Well, it takes three legs of the government to do that.

You and others are convinced that disarmament is going to happen. How? Will they come to our homes and remove them? Will they demand citizens to turn them in? Either of those would be impossible. So, then what would the government do? Bomb our habitats then send in the military to get the guns? Send in the drones? Oh, I know, maybe they have been feeding our soldiers GMO food that turns them against their family and friends, to go get the guns.

Clinton suggested a buy back program

a reply to: Jordan River

That has been done many times and voluntary. It is stupid, but does not amend the 2nd.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Sargeras

Well, it takes three legs of the government to do that.

You and others are convinced that disarmament is going to happen. How? Will they come to our homes and remove them? Will they demand citizens to turn them in? Either of those would be impossible. So, then what would the government do? Bomb our habitats then send in the military to get the guns? Send in the drones? Oh, I know, maybe they have been feeding our soldiers GMO food that turns them against their family and friends, to go get the guns.

And outright ban won't work here like in Australia or the UK.

So they just keep adding more and more laws and regulations, until it is an all out ban by thousands of rules and regulations.

Every negative thing that can be done with a gun is already illegal.

How would making it more " illegaler " change anything?

The only people that laws affect are law abiding folks.

How will further regulations placed on them stop criminals?

a reply to: MOMof3

I think they are trying to force gun control through media manipulation and brainwashing.

They will raise a generation trained from birth, educated in government schools, mesmerized by the media push of every shooting no matter the person responsible - taught that guns are bad, that guns are the things that kill people. They will twist things around until people are so confused that they forget that its people that kill people, not guns.

Eventually, only police and military will be allowed to keep guns.

Of course, if you vote for Trump, things might be ok for a while. He is a gun carrying NRA member.

a reply to: Sargeras

I don't have all the answers. What we americans have a problem with is the weapons keep getting more and more vicious. Is Australia a safe country to live in?

Guns aren't the Problem, People are the Problem. As many have said, you can take guns away from the people, and they'll just find alternatives.

It seems like the Gov't is trying to create an illegal take over using the basic rights of Human Beings against them. And why? Because they fear you more than you fear them, that's why.

Like to state I dont use guns. Don't own a single pistol, strap, glock, cold steel or shotgun.

Sleep better that militias are put in place in case of government tyranny.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I do not believe that because I see no evidence of it. Perhaps you are the one being manipulated.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Sargeras

I don't have all the answers. What we americans have a problem with is the weapons keep getting more and more vicious. Is Australia a safe country to live in?

Weapons aren't getting more vicious, and shootings are not getting more common.

That is just the spin they put on it to justify more laws.

Australia has less gun violence, but their murder rate and violent crime stats haven't fallen since the gun ban.

What is the desire, less murders or less murders with guns?

Because i'm of the opinion it isnt worse to be dead by gun than dead by anything else.

So if it doesn't stop murders or crimes why do it at all?

a reply to: Jordan River

I like the idea of militias also. But, who are they, do they have meetings, do they have inspections of their weapons, do they have a phone number to call if they are needed, how do you recognize them? As has been said, criminals pack too, so how to tell difference.

a reply to: Jordan River

Neither do i use guns, only in Cadets when i was an officer. I do not approve of them personally, nor do i think i would use one in my own defense, however, if you take that right away from human beings, and place that right into the hands of a Corrupt Government, eventually it will implode. Nothing good will come of it, even though... some Countries have never had a problem, such as the British Commonwealth Countries. However, we now live in a new time and era, and things are not looking too good, and we all know Rome Fell and it fell hard, they probably thought they'd have it their way forever too,

like we do now, but nothing lasts forever. And People should have the right to protect their families and themselves because Criminals don't abide by laws and rules. And should something go wrong, the Criminals lurking will be the ones to take over, because the Gov't you paid to Protect you and your so called rights did the exact opposite and sold everyone out to the highest bidder.

just saying..

a reply to: Sargeras

"Weapons aren't getting more vicious, and shootings are not getting more common. "

Did they have magazine fed guns on the streets at the time of the 2nd amendment, 1791?

Shootings are getting more common, you are just immune to it.

a reply to: MOMof3

According to the FBI Gun Crime have been decreasing dramatically since the 90's. So no we do not have an epidemic. The media would like you to think so. And no the 2nd Amendment did not want to limit our firearms to just muskets .. the founders wants us to be comparatively as armed as the government.