PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: InTheSoup on October 21, 2016, 09:51:26 PM
-
I am a very firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I wonder, would there really be enough people willing to fight for it? What would We really do if faced with that decision?
-
I am a very firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I wonder, would there really be enough people willing to fight for it? What would We really do if faced with that decision?
Interesting question. You could keep guns clandestinely, but if you had to use one in self defense, the gig is up.
Considering how many gun owners there are, I think lots of resistance would be made. There have been some observations that people are wussifying, though at what rate we don't know.
-
What makes you think that would happen? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs on this forum by paranoid conservatives would have you think left wing demoncrats are taking control or already have and the demons are of a single mind on the subject. But here is the reality that would first need to be reversed:
The Supreme Court of the US would need to reverse its District of Columbia v. Heller decision.[1] The SCofUS rarely reverses earlier decisions.
The 44 state constitutions that enumerate a personal right to bear arms would need to also be amended.[2]
Currently the US Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans.
Among the states:
31 states have Republican governors.
18 states have Democratic governors.
1 state has an independent governor.[3]
23 states have Republicans in control of both state houses and the governor's seat (a trifecta.)
7 states have a Democratic trifecta.
20 states have divided control.[4]
Given the above state of affairs, any revolution over attempts to repeal or amend the second amendment is likely many decades away, if ever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
[2] http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors)
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government (https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government)
-
What makes you think that would happen? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs on this forum by paranoid conservatives would have you think left wing demoncrats are taking control or already have and the demons are of a single mind on the subject. But here is the reality that would first need to be reversed:
The Supreme Court of the US would need to reverse its District of Columbia v. Heller decision.[1] The SCofUS rarely reverses earlier decisions.
The 44 state constitutions that enumerate a personal right to bear arms would need to also be amended.[2]
Currently the US Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans.
Among the states:
31 states have Republican governors.
18 states have Democratic governors.
1 state has an independent governor.[3]
23 states have Republicans in control of both state houses and the governor's seat (a trifecta.)
7 states have a Democratic trifecta.
20 states have divided control.[4]
Given the above state of affairs, any revolution over attempts to repeal or amend the second amendment is likely many decades away, if ever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
[2] http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors)
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government (https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government)
The SCOTUS wouldn't have to necessarily reverse it's opinion, at least not right away. Instead, it'll start with smaller measures. Banning certain types of ammo, beginning to ban certain types of parts for weapons, etc.
With the proliferation of guns in America, I don't think confiscation will ever be a viable option. There are too many guns and too many people with guns for anyone to try and actually take them. Not to mention who's going to do it? Generally speaking the ones who complain the most about guns won't pick one up to defend anything so it won't be them.
Further, it's not "paranoid conservatives" but rather concern based on comments made by leftists, including Clinton herself. What makes you think she won't take steps to begin the process of banning guns? Like I said, it won't start with some huge bill in Congress to outlaw them, it'll start much smaller.
-
Claim after claim by liberals that no one wants to take our guns.
Who is dumb enough to believe that BS?
-
Claim after claim by liberals that no one wants to take our guns.
Who is dumb enough to believe that BS?
The same ones who believed they could keep their doctors.
-
Do I believe progressives want to eliminate guns? Yes I do, especially when I see things like this from Occupy Democrats.
(https://scontent.fbos1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10484725_744813748945015_5077711271185564223_n.jpg?oh=5f0fc71d57a449a08ad453ab4ba583fd&oe=586028C7)
-
When Hillary packs the Supreme court with far left, radical anti 2A justices, Heller can and will be reversed. She can also enact ammo, and gun taxes, ammo, and gun bans, and confiscation just like Australia, and the UK did. She has already says she wants that. Yes, you can fail to comply, then get caught using one at a range, or for self defense, and GO TO JAIL.
-
Do I believe progressives want to eliminate guns? Yes I do, especially when I see things like this from Occupy Democrats.
(https://scontent.fbos1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10484725_744813748945015_5077711271185564223_n.jpg?oh=5f0fc71d57a449a08ad453ab4ba583fd&oe=586028C7)
I guess I'm an asshole.
In the first photo, 3 people are scowling like they are mad at something.
In the 2nd photo, 3 people are smiling.
My biggest problem with the photos is that girls shouldn't be allowed to have guns!
(that was a joke son, a joke I tell 'ya).
-
I am a very firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I wonder, would there really be enough people willing to fight for it? What would We really do if faced with that decision?
No. There won't be any revolution. There will be no repeal of the 2nd.
It will be more like throwing the frog into the kettle of water, and slowly raising the temperature.
The Dems will try to implement gradual "sensible" reforms, just taking away one right at a time and choosing the times when people are vulnerable, like after some terrorist decides to shoot up a school full of pretty white girls. Over time, they will make having a guns so socially enigmatic that only a few people will be brave enough to stand up to them, but by then it will be too late.
We need to nip it in the bud by getting a few supreme court decisions to squash the attacks on the 2a. But that will NEVER happen if Hillary gets to appoint the next few SC judges. And we won't prevent that from happening by "making a statement" with our vote and voting for Johnson. The only statement that will make is that we are ok with Hillary and her socialist agenda.
-
The only statement that will make is that we are ok with Hillary and her socialist agenda.
Bzzzzzt. Try again.
-
Bzzzzzt. Try again.
Ok.
The only statement that Conservatives will be making with a vote for Johnson is to help assure that Hillary gets elected.
The only way that statement would not be true is if even more liberals vote for Johnson, which would help assure a Trump win.
How's that?
-
No. There won't be any revolution. There will be no repeal of the 2nd.
It will be more like throwing the frog into the kettle of water, and slowly raising the temperature.
The Dems will try to implement gradual "sensible" reforms, just taking away one right at a time and choosing the times when people are vulnerable, like after some terrorist decides to shoot up a school full of pretty white girls. Over time, they will make having a guns so socially enigmatic that only a few people will be brave enough to stand up to them, but by then it will be too late.
We need to nip it in the bud by getting a few supreme court decisions to squash the attacks on the 2a. But that will NEVER happen if Hillary gets to appoint the next few SC judges. And we won't prevent that from happening by "making a statement" with our vote and voting for Johnson. The only statement that will make is that we are ok with Hillary and her socialist agenda.
You are probably correct, as the Dems/Liberal/Progressive/Communists have been doing that for many years, chipping away at our rights. They are VERY patient. When 2A related cases are brought before the Progressive controlled SCOTUS, and 2A rights begin to further dwindle, I do think we will see pockets of resistance, and non-compliance.
I'm still bitter, clinging to my guns, and religion.
-
The same ones who believed they could keep their doctors.
Amen.
Obama said HRC will say anything and do nothing. Wrong. She says anything then does whatever she wants to, as he does.
Sorry, asechrest. Dems are gullible fools with wool over their eyes. After being shat upon by O, they're rolling over so HRC can do the same.
-
I am a very firm believer in the 2nd amendment, but I wonder, would there really be enough people willing to fight for it? What would We really do if faced with that decision?
Truth is a slippery slope once the wheels of the regime start turning. We saw that in the old USSR and now in America. Truth has become the mortal enemy of the democrat left and those who stand on truth are becoming criminalized all the time.
In terms of the Second Amendment, though Hilary Clinton is flat out evil, she has the same tired worn out view of the truth to know that gun ownership, like SSI is the third rail and could quickly lose her so much support that there would be a supermajority in both houses sufficient to remove her and her criminal enterprise from power.
-
In terms of the Second Amendment, though Hilary Clinton is flat out evil, she has the same tired worn out view of the truth to know that gun ownership, like SSI is the third rail and could quickly lose her so much support that there would be a supermajority in both houses sufficient to remove her and her criminal enterprise from power.
As I have said before, she doesn't need the House or Senate to neuter the 2A. She will have the Supreme Court who will rule that gun ownership is NOT an individual right, but only the right of Government.
-
When Hillary packs the Supreme court with far left, radical anti 2A justices, Heller can and will be reversed. She can also enact ammo, and gun taxes, ammo, and gun bans, and confiscation just like Australia, and the UK did. She has already says she wants that. Yes, you can fail to comply, then get caught using one at a range, or for self defense, and GO TO JAIL.
I have a problem with both of them, fingers do not go on the bang switch until you are ready to fire. PERIOD!
-
What makes you think that would happen? All the wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs on this forum by paranoid conservatives would have you think left wing demoncrats are taking control or already have and the demons are of a single mind on the subject. But here is the reality that would first need to be reversed:
The Supreme Court of the US would need to reverse its District of Columbia v. Heller decision.[1] The SCofUS rarely reverses earlier decisions.
The 44 state constitutions that enumerate a personal right to bear arms would need to also be amended.[2]
Currently the US Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans.
Among the states:
31 states have Republican governors.
18 states have Democratic governors.
1 state has an independent governor.[3]
23 states have Republicans in control of both state houses and the governor's seat (a trifecta.)
7 states have a Democratic trifecta.
20 states have divided control.[4]
Given the above state of affairs, any revolution over attempts to repeal or amend the second amendment is likely many decades away, if ever.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
[2] http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=841)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors)
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government (https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government)
Jim, I'd like to think the way that you do. However, the assault weapons ban was a FEDERAL law, which prohibited a specific class of firearms solely upon their cosmetics. It also limited pistols to 10-round magazines, leaving two of my weapons less functional than the design permitted.
The Second Amendment can be evicerated without judicial approval, and possibly without congressional approval, if done in a manner similar or the AWB.
-
As I have said before, she doesn't need the House or Senate to neuter the 2A. She will have the Supreme Court who will rule that gun ownership is NOT an individual right, but only the right of Government.
THAT is the fucking key. And Chris Wallace didn't make Hillary answer that specific question. 😡😡😡
-
Hillary has stated her support for Australia-type laws. Trump should have hit her with that.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
-
As I have said before, she doesn't need the House or Senate to neuter the 2A. She will have the Supreme Court who will rule that gun ownership is NOT an individual right, but only the right of Government.
What I find amazing there is the left's ability to ignore the words that are written down. The militia is not the government, it is the people. But if Hillary puts justices on the Court who want it to be a government right then their path to believe in disarmament runs through the most important words in the amendment - militia, right of the people and shall not be infringed. It is like they took a giant bottle of white out and just started blotting out pieces until they can get to what they want.
I am still waiting for anyone, left, right or center to explain how the second amendment can be read in any way which permits the government to disarm the people even a little. My answer is that it cannot, you have to ignore words to get there.
There is a rule in logic that if you start with a known truth, make inferences and arrive at a fact which contradicts the original truth then you have made an error along the way. Given that the 2nd amendment is part of the Constitution, the highest truth of law, the same rule should apply.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
The people fooling themselves are the ones who won't take the lefties at their word, when they have clearly stated over and over that they want to eliminate guns from the hands of civilians.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
The 1994 - 2004 "Assault Weapons Ban" (misnomer, as the general public can not have military weapons for the most part), took away a large portion of the 2A, so it can happen again. The 2A protects all other Natural Rights that we have as human beings. Government does NOT grant us rights. Hillary wants more control of law abiding citizens, and dependency on government. If you really are a pilot, then you should not want that.
Hillary has PUBLICLY stated that she wants Australian style gun bans and gun confiscation. How naïve, and ignorant can you be? It is your 2A also, not just mine.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
how ironic.
-
The biggest fools in the world are the people who believe anything Hilary Clinton said, says, will say about ANYTHING. Clinton is the epitome of dishonest and it will only get worse as senility sets in while she sits in the White House. If you thought/think Biden is showering the world with his decreasing grip on reality, wait until you watch Hilary day by day, unable to take two weeks off to 'rest' between public appearances.
-
Hillary wouldn't run anything.
Her administration would be run by Huma Abedin, John Podesta, and Slick Willie. Hillary would rot away in the private quarters, occasionally summoned to sign paper and hobble her way to a microphone.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
You are right. The 2nd itself won't go away. But a liberal court will transform it to the point where we would need governmental permission to own a gun, and probably additional permission to buy ammo, and it will have to be locked up except for times when we have permission to hold it.
That will all probably happen eventually, but if we elect Hillary, it will happen sooner.
-
You are right. The 2nd itself won't go away. But a liberal court will transform it to the point where we would need governmental permission to own a gun, and probably additional permission to buy ammo, and it will have to be locked up except for times when we have permission to hold it.
That will all probably happen eventually, but if we elect Hillary, it will happen sooner.
A liberal/progressive court will nullify the 2A as an individual right. Hillary says she "respects" the 2A, but she only respects as a GOVERNMENT RIGHT, not an individual right. Hillary, and the Democrats do not want to have any obstacles to a full totalitarian dictatorship.
The "Militia" will be reinterpreted to mean the state National Guard which is not "the People", but the Government run Army.
-
So, here in the great anus of a state, Massachusetts, we have an AG who just banned most semi automatic rifles, most handguns are banned and large capacity magazines are banned. The semi automatic rifle ban is a recent re interpretation of the law by this activist AG who, if Hillary is elected is on a short list of AGs for Hillary's administration.
-
So, here in the great anus of a state, Massachusetts, we have an AG who just banned most semi automatic rifles, most handguns are banned and large capacity magazines are banned. The semi automatic rifle ban is a recent re interpretation of the law by this activist AG who, if Hillary is elected is on a short list of AGs for Hillary's administration.
Maura Healy, also the first openly gay AG in MA history. Not that there is anything wrong with that. She is also very, very pro abortion.
-
You are right. The 2nd itself won't go away. But a liberal court will transform it to the point where we would need governmental permission to own a gun, and probably additional permission to buy ammo, and it will have to be locked up except for times when we have permission to hold it.
That will all probably happen eventually, but if we elect Hillary, it will happen sooner.
Like I said before, I think this is the most likely thing to happen. That, and if both houses of Congress go back to Democrat control so they can ban things like ammo, weapons parts, etc. Again, I don't think confiscation is ever going to be a likely scenario given the amount of guns and gun owners that exist.
-
Again, I don't think confiscation is ever going to be a likely scenario given the amount of guns and gun owners that exist.
They don't need to confiscate them, just make them illegal, so that if you use them, or are caught with one, you will go to jail. I think Hillary's administration will go after ammo first.
-
They don't need to confiscate them, just make them illegal, so that if you use them, or are caught with one, you will go to jail. I think Hillary's administration will go after ammo first.
That's not going to happen. I don't even think a liberal Supreme Court would be able to uphold that one. That would make over a hundred million Americans criminals, instantly. I do agree that she is likely to go after ammo and parts first, however.
-
So, here in the great anus of a state, Massachusetts, we have an AG who just banned most semi automatic rifles, most handguns are banned and large capacity magazines are banned. The semi automatic rifle ban is a recent re interpretation of the law by this activist AG who, if Hillary is elected is on a short list of AGs for Hillary's administration.
Technically, the AG didn't ban anything. The AG published a notice of what they consider a copycat of banned guns.
Of course, the reinterpretation of the Massachusetts law is without merit as well as being completely irrational.
The 1998 Massachusetts law was a copy of the irrational 1994 Federal law. Under the Federal law, many of the firearms that are similar to AR-15s were (and are) in fact legal. The massachusetts AG is deviating from the clear intent of the Massachusetts law.
-
Maura Healy, also the first openly gay AG in MA history. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Then it need not even be mentioned. The phrase "not that there is anything wrong with that" says there is something wrong and you're mentioning it because you think there is something wrong.
Now the 2nd amendment thing, there is definately something wrong with that.
-
Technically, the AG didn't ban anything. The AG published a notice of what they consider a copycat of banned guns.
Of course, the reinterpretation of the Massachusetts law is without merit as well as being completely irrational.
The 1998 Massachusetts law was a copy of the irrational 1994 Federal law. Under the Federal law, many of the firearms that are similar to AR-15s were (and are) in fact legal. The massachusetts AG is deviating from the clear intent of the Massachusetts law.
I believe if you run afoul of these laws it's up to a ten year felony.
-
Then it need not even be mentioned. The phrase "not that there is anything wrong with that" says there is something wrong and you're mentioning it because you think there is something wrong.
Now the 2nd amendment thing, there is definately something wrong with that.
She mentioned it, it was part of her campaign. The sad thing is that there was a highly qualified, legitimate opponent to her, who said he would deregister from his political party if he were elected AG. He didn't win, she did and she is a political hack of the worst kind.
-
Then it need not even be mentioned. The phrase "not that there is anything wrong with that" says there is something wrong and you're mentioning it because you think there is something wrong.
For me, it often shows a very Progressive stance, and trend. These people are just far left, and being LGBT often means militantly far left as is this AG. So, no I do not have anything against gays, but when their entire political spectrum is radical, then I do.
-
For me, it often shows a very Progressive stance, and trend. These people are just far left, and being LGBT often means militantly far left as is this AG. So, no I do not have anything against gays, but when their entire political spectrum is radical, then I do.
I do believe it is true that in MOST instance, the LGBTQ community is overwhelmingly liberal. That doesn't make them bad and it doesn't make me hate them. But it is relevant in describing their political persuasion and how it affects their decisions. So it is worth mentioning.
Saying that it is not worth mentioning only serves to squash conversation and make the discussion taboo. But only through open discussion can we all better understand each other. It is similar to how many people are reluctant toi discuss race with people of other races. It only serves to hide true feelings and opinions. But that is the liberal way.
-
-
That's not going to happen. I don't even think a liberal Supreme Court would be able to uphold that one. That would make over a hundred million Americans criminals, instantly. I do agree that she is likely to go after ammo and parts first, however.
Did you think a supposedly Conservative Supreme Court would bend over backwards to rewrite the flawed ACA/Obamacare to save it at the last minute?
We should have no faith in SCOTUS with Scalia gone IMO. And we already know that the Congress will roll over - to answer the OP, I do not believe we will revolt, everyone thinks they have too much to lose if they fight.
'Gimp
-
Did you think a supposedly Conservative Supreme Court would bend over backwards to rewrite the flawed ACA/Obamacare to save it at the last minute?
We should have no faith in SCOTUS with Scalia gone IMO. And we already know that the Congress will roll over - to answer the OP, I do not believe we will revolt, everyone thinks they have too much to lose if they fight.
'Gimp
I actually did have some faith at first given the facts of the case (or at least what I read). Not so much to re-write it, but strike down the un-Constitutional portions of it, of which there were many.
-
Your Precious 2nd amendment isn't going away, despite all the scare tactics the NRA likes to spread. (But go ahead and keep fooling yourselves)
Why isn't it your 2nd Amendment as well?
If you haven't read the Heller dissents, then you haven't paid attention as to how the Second Amendment could be easily gutted as to render it irrelevant.
-
A liberal/progressive court will nullify the 2A as an individual right. Hillary says she "respects" the 2A, but she only respects as a GOVERNMENT RIGHT, not an individual right. Hillary, and the Democrats do not want to have any obstacles to a full totalitarian dictatorship.
The "Militia" will be reinterpreted to mean the state National Guard which is not "the People", but the Government run Army.
And fucking Chris Wallace didn't pressure her for an answer to his question on the individual right in the last debate.
-
Why isn't it your 2nd Amendment as well?
If you haven't read the Heller dissents, then you haven't paid attention as to how the Second Amendment could be easily gutted as to render it irrelevant.
Coupled with ammo, magazine and weapon type executive orders and general ATF enforcement actions it could all go away quietly as well.
Clinton's husband and Janet Reno were caught, for example, illegally funnelling federal funds into local gun control elections back in the 90's - they have no shame and recognize no authority to limit their anti-American drive and extra-constitutional mechanations - and Congress and SCOTUS can no longer be counted on to perform their separation of powers duties.
Considering how far Bill got, the prospect of a Hillary presidency should terrify anyone who considers themselves believer in the Bill of Rights since without the 2nd to back it up, the rest are just words.
'Gimp
-
C'mon, Dems. Wake up!
http://www.breitbart.com/wikileaks/2016/10/23/wikileaks-hillary-gun-control-supporters-planted-town-hall-audience/
-
Considering how far Bill got, the prospect of a Hillary presidency should terrify anyone who considers themselves believer in the Bill of Rights since without the 2nd to back it up, the rest are just words.
'Gimp
Agreed. The other thing one can do aside from voting against Hillary is becoming a responsible gun owner. It's unfortunate some states have passed such draconian laws (California, Massachusetts and Illinois, I'm looking at you) but in other states (Arizona being among the best), the 2nd Amendment is alive and flourishing.
-
I saw video yesterday of a Clinton advisor admitting that HRC has for years toned down and spun her PUBLIC statements about gun control while her PRIVATE and inner circle intent is to ban them. When asked directly whether HRC would ban all guns, the advisor replied, "0h yes, most definitely."
Dems who want to own guns, take note.
-
I saw video yesterday of a Clinton advisor admitting that HRC has for years toned down and spun her PUBLIC statements about gun control while her PRIVATE and inner circle intent is to ban them. When asked directly whether HRC would ban all guns, the advisor replied, "0h yes, most definitely."
Dems who want to own guns, take note.
I've heard that as well; it won't happen. Guns are far too popular in America and there are too many of them, along with too many people who own them, to try and take them.
-
I've heard that as well; it won't happen. Guns are far too popular in America and there are too many of them, along with too many people who own them, to try and take them.
If you like your guns, you can keep your guns. ::) ::)
-
If you like your guns, you can keep your guns. ::) ::)
I asked earlier, but who's going to come and take them? The same ones who want them banned are the same ones who won't pick one up yet surround themselves with people who have guns. While there are some out there who believe that private citizens shouldn't own guns and wouldn't have a problem attempting to confiscate them, I think the vast majority of those in law enforcement and the military won't take up arms against their fellow citizens, especially since a lot of them are pro-2nd Amendment and responsible gun owners themselves.
-
I asked earlier, but who's going to come and take them? The same ones who want them banned are the same ones who won't pick one up yet surround themselves with people who have guns. While there are some out there who believe that private citizens shouldn't own guns and wouldn't have a problem attempting to confiscate them, I think the vast majority of those in law enforcement and the military won't take up arms against their fellow citizens, especially since a lot of them are pro-2nd Amendment and responsible gun owners themselves.
Look at Australia, and the UK. They can make entire classes of firearm arms, like semi-auto, magazine fed pistols, rifles, and shotguns illegal with the stroke of a pen with the Supreme's backing. Why do we need anything more than a single shot, shot gun? They may not come door to door to confiscate, but they will be unusable, and will have to be hidden. Take them to a range, or use them for self defense, and you go to jail. Reports are that many were buried in Australia. What good are they now?
Hillary has publicly stated she wants the Australia/UK gun control model. Privately she says she wants out and out confiscation of all guns in private hands.
-
I asked earlier, but who's going to come and take them? The same ones who want them banned are the same ones who won't pick one up yet surround themselves with people who have guns. While there are some out there who believe that private citizens shouldn't own guns and wouldn't have a problem attempting to confiscate them, I think the vast majority of those in law enforcement and the military won't take up arms against their fellow citizens, especially since a lot of them are pro-2nd Amendment and responsible gun owners themselves.
Who will come take them? Nobody. You will get a letter saying come turn it in. There will be a lawsuit. It will fail. And then people will be forced into the choice of surrendering to Hillary or becoming an outlaw. Pretty crappy choice.
-
Look at Australia, and the UK. They can make entire classes of firearm arms, like semi-auto, magazine fed pistols, rifles, and shotguns illegal with the stroke of a pen with the Supreme's backing. Why do we need anything more than a single shot, shot gun? They may not come door to door to confiscate, but they will be unusable, and will have to be hidden. Take them to a range, or use them for self defense, and you go to jail. Reports are that many were buried in Australia. What good are they now?
Hillary has publicly stated she wants the Australia/UK gun control model. Privately she says she wants out and out confiscation of all guns in private hands.
I know what she wants, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's akin to the frog in a pot of water and slowly turning the heat up. Hillary won't just start with making entire classes of firearms illegal, there's no support for that anymore. If Obama couldn't get anything done after Sandy Hook then she won't be able to get anything done on her own. Perhaps over time progressives can get there, but it won't happen during Hillary's term.
-
Who will come take them? Nobody. You will get a letter saying come turn it in. There will be a lawsuit. It will fail. And then people will be forced into the choice of surrendering to Hillary or becoming an outlaw. Pretty crappy choice.
Again, I don't see this as happening durning Hillary's term. The attempts to revive the assault weapons bans have all failed and were non-starters. Outright bans and making them illegal isn't going to happen. Like I said before, I can see them going after ammo and gun parts and slowly choking the system but not for all of it at once.
-
I've heard that as well; it won't happen. Guns are far too popular in America and there are too many of them, along with too many people who own them, to try and take them.
Really?
So what happens if Hillary nominates a friend of the Wise Latina for a USSC vacancy; a compliant Senate majority led by Majority Spaghetti Noodle McConnell determines that it would be too politically risky to stand up against the first female president's first nomination for risk of being called sexist, and besides, that nominee is "moderate" and therefore confirms her; and upon the first case challenging Heller or McDonald, she sides with the majority that the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee an individual RKBA.
What are you, or the rest of us gun owners, going to do about it?
-
Really?
So what happens if Hillary nominates a friend of the Wise Latina for a USSC vacancy; a compliant Senate majority led by Majority Spaghetti Noodle McConnell determines that it would be too politically risky to stand up against the first female president's first nomination for risk of being called sexist, and besides, that nominee is "moderate" and therefore confirms her; and upon the first case challenging Heller or McDonald, she sides with the majority that the Second Amendment does NOT guarantee an individual RKBA.
What are you, or the rest of us gun owners, going to do about it?
What case is currently working its way through the court system that would go to the SCOTUS next term? I don't know if there are any, so that's a real question. Secondly, assuming your scenario does play out, what happens when RKBA is ruled as unconstitutional and not an individual right? The SCOTUS cannot then demand that people begin turning them in; they don't have that authority. Not to mention that's such a huge, sweeping ruling that I don't see that happening.
I agree that Hillary is a serious threat to the 2nd Amendment. I agree that she would love to not just ban weapons but confiscate them if possible. I just don't see her confiscating weapons (or SCOTUS invalidating RKBA) during her term. I see it more slowly and gradually, especially if she wants to win a second term.
-
If Obama couldn't get anything done after Sandy Hook then she won't be able to get anything done on her own. Perhaps over time progressives can get there, but it won't happen during Hillary's term.
Obama didn't have a Progressive, far left, anti 2A SCOTUS. Hillary will.