2016 USA Presidential Elections

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,629
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
Last edited:

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
I would not rule out a second civil war if Clinton is elected. I think we all know that she will come for the guns harder than anyone before her and, sadly, that might not end well. A lot of people are fed up and a lot of people are on edge.

What makes you say that? People said the exact same thing about Obama, and for 8 years he didn't take anyone's gun away. Seems more like a recurring and very powerful fear, that has little chance of happening, regarding of who the President elect is.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,629
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
What makes you say that? People said the exact same thing about Obama, and for 8 years he didn't take anyone's gun away. Seems more like a recurring and very powerful fear, that has little chance of happening, regarding of who the President elect is.

Well, there's the fact that she has outright stated she is going to try to ban guns. Her husband pushed for the original AWB and signed it into law the same day it passed the senate. She has been recorded stating she is going to ban guns at private campaign functions and her aids have been recorded telling people that the top item on Hillary's agenda once in office is gun legislation. She has stated that she things SCOTUS is "wrong" in their decisions on gun related civil rights

I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn?t agree to reinstate them

?We?ve got to go after this. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.?

In response to the Heller case regarding Washington DC's laws banning handguns and making it a felony to put a bullet into the firing chamber of a gun (a defacto ban):

?I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.?

By the way Breyer and Ginsberg were both dissenters on the Heller case, and both were appointed by Bill Clinton.

In 1993 Hillary Clinton tried to push for a 25% tax on all gun sales. Her "expanded background checks" will add anywhere from $100-$200 to the cost of every firearm sold and will require a registry of all firearms - none of which will actually stop gun violence because those firearms will just be transferred illegally.

She has gone on-record in favor of making gun manufacturers liable for how their products are used - something that is way outside the bounds of current US law and would set the precedent for the manufacturer of any product to be sued for that product's misuse.

She keeps spouting the false statistic that gun violence in America claims the lives of ?33,000 people a year.? In 2014, there were 21,334 firearm suicides, 586 accidental gun deaths, and 8,124 gun murders. Clinton gets to the 33,000 number by adding in roughly 3,000 justifiable homicides by police and civilians - that means the bad guy got shot doing bad things. Banning guns also won't prevent suicide; Japan, for example, has a staggeringly high suicide rate (over 50% greater than the US) and is pretty much a gun-free society.

But yeah, other than that, not a thing.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
?So I?m going to speak out. I?m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA, and we?re going to do whatever we can. I?m proud when my husband took them on and we were able to ban assault weapons but he had to put a sunset on it so, 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn?t agree to reinstate them. We?ve got to go after this. Here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.?
-Hillary Clinton
What's curious is that the NRA is a non-profit funded largely by 5+ million voluntarily paying members, rather than being some sort of evil stealing corrupt organization (such as, you know, the Clinton Foundation).
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,629
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
It always amazes me how the Left has so much venom for the NRA; they are no different than, say, a Union making a political contribution. It's a group of citizens who come together to express themselves together with a voice louder than any one can have individually. It's not the NRA that influences the people, it's the people who created, influence, and fund the NRA.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
It always amazes me how the Left has so much venom for the NRA; they are no different than, say, a Union making a political contribution. It's a group of citizens who come together to express themselves together with a voice louder than any one can have individually. It's not the NRA that influences the people, it's the people who created, influence, and fund the NRA.
Antis get reeeaaallllyyyyy angry when I tell them that I'm a life member :lol:
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
Just stumbled upon a summary of MA gun laws through the years. About that "compromise" the left always wants...

HISTORY OF MASSACHUSETTS FIREARMS STATUTES

The Commonwealth?s gun laws are confusing unless viewed in historical context. There are two basic gun licenses in Massachusetts. 1) The Firearms Identification Card (FID Card) issued under (G.L. c. 140, ? 129B). It allows you to purchase, possess and carry ammunition and non-large capacity rifles and shotguns. 2) The ?handgun license,? issued under G.L. c. 140, ? 131 allows you to purchase, possess and carry handguns and high capacity rifles and shotguns.

The term ?firearm? in state law, is defined as a handgun. G.L. c. 140, ? 121. Before 1906, the state had no restrictions on owning or carrying guns.

Chapter 172, Acts of 1906 said that justices, mayors, or boards of police could authorize a person to carry a loaded pistol or revolver ?if it appears that the applicant had good reason to fear an injury to his person or property, and that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.? Carrying a loaded handgun without a permit was punishable by up to one year in jail. The 1906 law is codified at G.L. c. 140, ? 131 (licensing) and c. 269, ? 10 (punishment for unlicensed possession). Chapter 548, ? 1, Acts of 1911, removed the word ?loaded,? thus punishing carrying of unloaded handguns without a license.

Chapter 207, ? 1, Acts of 1919 added after the word ?property,? the words ?or for any other proper purpose.?

Chapter 485, Acts of 1922 licensed gun dealers and restricted ?unnaturalized foreign born? from having a license.

The Acts of 1925, c. 284, ? 4, prohibited aliens and minors under the age of 15 from having a license.

Acts of 1926, c. 395, ? 3 (now G.L. c. 140, ? 131A), allowed an unlicensed person to obtain a temporary license to buy a handgun to possess in his/her home or place of business.

Acts of 1927, c. 326, ? 5, Tenth, punished carrying a handgun, loaded or unloaded. There was no distinction between carrying openly or concealed. Over the years the specific classes of people prohibited from having a license has grown.

Before 1968 Massachusetts did not require a license to possess any type of gun in your home or place of business or to carry a rifle or shotgun outside your home. Only carrying a handgun outside the home or business was licensed.

Acts of 1968, c. 737, ? 7, (now G.L. c. 140, ?? 129B, 129C and 129D), enacted the Firearms Identification (FID) Card law which required citizens to have a license to possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun in his/her own home or to carry a rifle or shotgun outside of his/her own home. The FID Card listed specific disqualifications for persons who wished the license. If you were not disqualified, you were ?entitled? to the license. At that time the penalty section, (G.L. c. 269, ? 10) was changed to distinguish between ?carrying? a handgun outside of the home (requiring a ? 131 license) and possessing a handgun inside the home without an FID Card. Acts of 1968, ? 737. (Now at G.L. c. 269, ?? 10(a), 10(h)).

The Acts of 1975, c. 113, ? 2 created a one year mandatory sentence for carrying a gun of any kind outside the home without the proper license (G.L. c. 269, ? 10(a)). It made no difference if the gun were loaded, unloaded, in the open or concealed. Carrying was a felony. At that time the sections of c. 269, ? 10 were renumbered. The penalty for ?possession? of a gun without a license was placed in ? 10(h). A conviction under ? 10(h) was a misdemeanor without a mandatory sentence. People charged with ?carrying? would admit to ?possession? without an FID Card under ? 10(h) to avoid the mandatory sentence. Temporary possession of a gun was not enough to prove the crime of ?carrying? a gun without a license.

Com. v. Osborne, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 657 (1977). Osborne, held that a ? 131 license was not needed to possess a handgun in your home or place of business. Only an FID Card was needed. Id. at 649. See also Com. v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735 (1978) (being in the hall outside your apartment was not in your home) and Com. v. Morse, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 426 (1981) (contrasted the separate crimes carrying and possession without an FID Card).

The Acts of 1990, c. 511, ? 2, rewrote G.L. c. 269, ? 10 by changing the word ?carry? to ?possesses.? Police complained that it was too hard to prove someone outside a home was ?carrying? if the police did not observe movement. At the same time Chapter 269, ? 10(a)(1) was added to make it clear that the mandatory penalties of ? 10(a) did not apply to people in their own home or place of business. Section 10(h) imposed a lesser penalty on people who had a gun in their home or place of business without complying with the FID Card law.

In December of 1997 you could own a rifle, shotgun or handgun in your home or place of business and carry a rifle or shotgun outside of the home on an FID Card. A handgun could not be outside the home without a ? 131 handgun license. Carrying, that is movement, was no longer an element of the crime. Seay, 376 Mass. at 742. You were entitled to an FID Card if you were not a disqualified person. You could buy a handgun with a permit to purchase and possess the handgun in your home or place of business for protection without a ? 131 handgun license. The law made no distinction between carrying a handgun openly or concealed.

Chapter 180, Acts of 1998, made major changes to the law which were, for the most part, the law in effect when this action arose. One major change was that you could no longer possess a handgun in your home under an FID card. The new G.L. c. 140, ? 129B(6)(ii) only allowed possession of a handgun with an FID Card on a licensed gun range.
(formatting mine)


Yeah, the slippery slope is a total myth, right? :rolleyes:
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,013
Location
near Cologne

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,629
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
It is topical to the election, especially given Trump's recent comments.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
The Obama/ISIS thing is just another comment being spun by the media. He's just talking about Obama's handling of the Middle East, the power void, and the rise of a movement. It's obvious even to a tomato that Trump is not suggesting that Obama went to Syria, picked up a Koran, and declared a caliphate.

As far as the second amendment comment is concerned... well, that's sort of the point of it - to overthrow a tyrannical government.
 

_HighVoltage_

Captain Volvo
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
9,964
Car(s)
1998 Volvo S70 T5M
The Obama/ISIS thing is just another comment being spun by the media. He's just talking about Obama's handling of the Middle East, the power void, and the rise of a movement. It's obvious even to a tomato that Trump is not suggesting that Obama went to Syria, picked up a Koran, and declared a caliphate.

As far as the second amendment comment is concerned... well, that's sort of the point of it - to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Trump had a chance to clarify, but he stood his ground:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/

HH: I?ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he?s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

HH: But he?s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He?s trying to kill them.

DT: I don?t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don?t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they?re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?

DT: No, it?s no mistake. Everyone?s liking it. I think they?re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don?t know if you heard that.

HH: I did. I did. I played it.

DT: I gave her the co-founder.

HH: I know what you?re arguing?

DT: You?re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?


HH: I don?t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn?t create ISIS. That?s what I would say.

DT: Well, I disagree.

HH: All right, that?s okay.

DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that?s why ISIS came about.

HH: That?s?

DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn?t have had ISIS.

HH: That?s true.

DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

HH: And that?s, I?d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I?m keeping you long, and Hope?s going to kill me.

DT: But they wouldn?t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

So yes, he does mean the power void, but he stubbornly defends his outlandish choice of words that Obama founded ISIS. Not so much media spin - he is spinning it himself.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,433
And did you hear about the Orlando shooter's father on stage with Hillary Clinton the other day? Can you imagine the outcry from the media if that happened to Trump? If David Duke's dad showed up at a Trump rally? We'd never hear the end of it.

But it was Hillary Clinton, so crickets.

It will be entertaining to see who wins this battle of incompetence in November.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
24,831
Location
Michigan USA
Trump has his own issues with people at his rallies. The guy spotlighted in this video is former Congressmen Mark Foley. He was forced to resign because he sent sexually explicit emails and texts to teenage boys.



Isn't it also great that he admits that in order for him to be there, he had to be known to the campaign. Trump has known him since 87, and yet he still got on his stage while he berated Hillary for those in attendance of her rally.


As far as the Orlando shooter's father, he admonished his son immediately after the shooting. Should he never be seen in public again? No more than sins of a father should tarnish a child's life, should the sins of a child tarnish those of the parents.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,151
The Obama/ISIS thing is just another comment being spun by the media. He's just talking about Obama's handling of the Middle East, the power void, and the rise of a movement. It's obvious even to a tomato that Trump is not suggesting that Obama went to Syria, picked up a Koran, and declared a caliphate.[...]

Which is exactly why I posted a link to an article "Trump doubles down on his claim that Obama created Islamic State" - because what you wrote was my first reaction also. "he must mean this in that way and should have just said it differently, etc" ... but apparently he liked his own quote just too much to go back on it. At least that was until now ... where he now is saying he meant it sarcastically. As HighVoltage is pointing out - Trump himself is the one spinning this. Now he?s back to attacking the media over the shit he said himself and even validated later.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,419
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
He's just talking about Obama's handling of the Middle East, the power void, and the rise of a movement. It's obvious even to a tomato that Trump is not suggesting that Obama went to Syria, picked up a Koran, and declared a caliphate.

No, that's how Republican media tried to spin it, which hurried around like roaches hit by light, trying to make that position defensible, but when a radio host proposed this, Trump stood by his very sane remarks.

Only today after who knows how many people insisted for him to backtrack he came out to say it was sarcasm. Kind of like when you propose some idea nobody gets behind and you go like "oooh it was a jooooooke"

Even republicans are coming out asking his funding to be cut, now

This is the ridiculest-est show I've ever witnessed. And I come from a country where the prime minister was asking people to handle the austerity while he shopped for 3000 dollar suits somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,151
Trump has his own issues with people at his rallies. The guy spotlighted in this video is former Congressmen Mark Foley. He was forced to resign because he sent sexually explicit emails and texts to teenage boys.[...]
On his wikipedia page it says nothing about being found guilty of a crime or even being charged with one. I?m not trying to defend the man (or even know enough to do so) but being pressured out of office because something "looks bad" does not equate to being a criminal.

While I agree that is stupid trying to use the Father of the Orlando shooter against Clinton, it is equally stupid trying to use Foley against Trump. Both campaigns should not sink to this level of argument.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,419
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
On his wikipedia page it says nothing about being found guilty of a crime or even being charged with one. I?m not trying to defend the man (or even know enough to do so) but being pressured out of office because something "looks bad" does not equate to being a criminal.

While I agree that is stupid trying to use the Father of the Orlando shooter against Clinton, it is equally stupid trying to use Foley against Trump. Both campaigns should not sink to this level of argument.

When you have to get someone like Trump elected, there's nothing left for you to do but to nitpick at absolutely everything. Even if he ran against a potato, he would be digging himself into a hole all on his own. No pun intended.
 

Interrobang

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,151
[...]
This is the ridiculest-est show I've ever witnessed. And I come from a country where the prime minister was asking people to handle the austerity while he shopped for 3000 dollar suits somewhere.
Which is the only good thing coming out of this. Even somewhere half away around the globe in a hut without water or electricity people are going "man, our politicians are all awful - but thank god they are not Trump".

America 2016 - making other countries feel better about themselves
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,433
On his wikipedia page it says nothing about being found guilty of a crime or even being charged with one. I?m not trying to defend the man (or even know enough to do so) but being pressured out of office because something "looks bad" does not equate to being a criminal.

While I agree that is stupid trying to use the Father of the Orlando shooter against Clinton, it is equally stupid trying to use Foley against Trump. Both campaigns should not sink to this level of argument.

No one cares about who managed to get on the stage, it means nothing. Except maybe she has poor security. It's the hypocrisy of the press that is being attacked.
 
Top