Trump

[AquaMan]

Secret message to his Trump Militia. No one was supposed to notice.

[heironymouspasparagus]

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
"But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

Truth.  She has been after that goal for years.  She even said, "If the Second Amendment is a personal right..."   Even though the Supreme Court has actually defined it as such.  (Heller)

The saving grace here is that if she wins, it is unlikely she will get a veto proof Congress to go with.  

Supreme Court justice is much more dicey.  That's why I have mentioned before that the current congress (undeserving of capital letter) is being totally stupid.  They have a great opportunity here to ratify a serious candidate, nominated by a moderate "Republican" President, who has a good judicial background that would most likely maintain the status quo as closely as we could ever hope for the next couple of regimes.

I am even more scared of one of them choosing a justice than I am of either being in office.  That really sucks!!

[Ed W]

Secret message to his Trump Militia. No one was supposed to notice.

They're more correctly called brownshirts rather than militia. Militias had some form of organization.

[Ed W]

Truth.  She has been after that goal for years.  She even said, "If the Second Amendment is a personal right..."   Even though the Supreme Court has actually defined it as such.  (Heller)

"They're cummin' fer year guuuuuns!" Why are gun nuts such fearful people? Remember, it was Obama coming for your guns 8 years ago. When did that happen? Edward R. Murrow said, "We are not descended from fearful men." He said that from London during the blitz. Yet here we are less than a century later seeing the NRA and Herr Trump using fear as a tool to manipulate people. Get a grip.

[Hoss]

"They're cummin' fer year guuuuuns!" Why are gun nuts such fearful people? Remember, it was Obama coming for your guns 8 years ago. When did that happen? Edward R. Murrow said, "We are not descended from fearful men." He said that from London during the blitz. Yet here we are less than a century later seeing the NRA and Herr Trump using fear as a tool to manipulate people. Get a grip.

[Red Arrow]

So he does have a place to put them ready to go.
 
 

[AquaMan]

Nah, that's just the place he was going to store the bullets.

[AquaMan]

They're more correctly called brownshirts rather than militia. Militias had some form of organization.

I was surprised to see his militia demonstrating outside the republican convention. Someone sent me a link for a guy who pranked them during a rally speech. It was funny till I realized that the press had not covered their rallies. Their behavior would have scared most Americans. Dang liberal media.

[heironymouspasparagus]

"They're cummin' fer year guuuuuns!" Why are gun nuts such fearful people? Remember, it was Obama coming for your guns 8 years ago. When did that happen? Edward R. Murrow said, "We are not descended from fearful men." He said that from London during the blitz. Yet here we are less than a century later seeing the NRA and Herr Trump using fear as a tool to manipulate people. Get a grip.

That is why there are organizations like the NRA.  It is not due to lack of desire or trying - how many times have you heard him talking about it in those last 8 years.  And before.  Intent is the predecessor to action.

Not fearful at all - that's what I was getting at about the Congress and Courts being where they are now.  That's why I am Lifetime Member NRA.  Will always be vigilant about our rights - not just the 2nd Amendment, but ALL of them.  It's "We, the People..." - in the amendments that mention "the people".


There is a poster that says, "There are 170 million gun owners in this country, with about 20 gazillion rounds of ammunition.... If we were a problem,  you would know it."

With all the talk about gun control, I still haven't heard ANY politician say exactly how they are gonna take guns away from criminals - just law abiding citizens.

[cannon_fodder]

Wait... whose threatening to take your guns away?

I know I've been hearing it on Obama for 8 years now, but he has done absolutely nothing with gun control or gun violence. So that's 8 years of utter fear mongering and BS. Under Bush, it was the Democrats that ran Congress who were going to take my guns away, they didn't do anything in 8 years either. Then there was the Republican Congress under Clinton, who passed legislation putting a waiting period on handguns and banning sales of new assault rifles with certain characteristics... but that you could certainly still own and could always still buy (just not new). But Clinton never took anyone's guns away. Before that was Bush I who didn't take anyone's guns away. Reagan was in favor of gun control, but he didn't take anyone's guns away either. I've been hearing the same stupid line for at least 20 years, and still no one has tried to take my guns away. Not once.

Yet more than 50% of gun owners think the gubment' is trying to take their guns. Charleston Heston said you can have his gun when you pry it from his cold, dead hands, in 2000...he's now been dead for nearly a decade. Still no one has pried that gun from his hands.

So lets recap: no one has said they are going to take your guns away and the Federal government never has taken guns away as a matter of policy. 

But boy, is it an effective scare tactic!  THEYRE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS PEOPLE! ALL OF EM! Day took er jobs! Save the guns! Any. Day. They're coming! I know they didn't take your guns for the 200 years before the NRA, but now they only aren't taking them because of the NRA! In fact, if it wasn't for the NRA the Queen of England could march right in and take your house. How would you like that? And notice we haven't had any alien invasions since Will Smith started protecting us all by joining the Men in Black!

Where's this level of enthusiasm for our 1st Amendment rights? Or the 4th, or 6th, or... you know, Amendments that are actually violated by the government on a daily basis. Literally every, single day. But lets totally concentrate on that one amendment that really isn't under threat.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wait... whose threatening to take your guns away?

I know I've been hearing it on Obama for 8 years now, but he has done absolutely nothing with gun control or gun violence. So that's 8 years of utter fear mongering and BS. Under Bush, it was the Democrats that ran Congress who were going to take my guns away, they didn't do anything in 8 years either. Then there was the Republican Congress under Clinton, who passed legislation putting a waiting period on handguns and banning sales of new assault rifles with certain characteristics... but that you could certainly still own and could always still buy (just not new). But Clinton never took anyone's guns away. Before that was Bush I who didn't take anyone's guns away. Reagan was in favor of gun control, but he didn't take anyone's guns away either. I've been hearing the same stupid line for at least 20 years, and still no one has tried to take my guns away. Not once.

Obama has acted repeatedly - as has Hillary - that their intent is to remove guns from private ownership.  They and many others explicitly support the agenda of the Brady Bunch Clown Show.

And as I said just a few minutes ago - intent is the predecessor to action.  He wants to be he also has been unable to because of the checks and balances that we have.  He has been unable to accomplish anything, but most certainly NOT because he didn't want to!!  

Recap - Yes, they have stated that the intent is to take guns away.  Because they haven't is a matter of a strong, robust opposition to concept.



As for Obama's previous intent -

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to a case where a homeowner defended himself against a burglar who broke into his house....twice!  Hale DeMar.  The state law was to give homeowners some measure of 'castle doctrine' protection - provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.  Twice.  The governor vetoed it when it did pass, which was overridden.

Written a little over-dramatically, but covers the basics....
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-01-22/news/0401220356_1_alarm-bedroom-police

[swake]

Obama has acted repeatedly - as has Hillary - that their intent is to remove guns from private ownership.  They and many others explicitly support the agenda of the Brady Bunch Clown Show.

And as I said just a few minutes ago - intent is the predecessor to action.  He wants to be he also has been unable to because of the checks and balances that we have.  He has been unable to accomplish anything, but most certainly NOT because he didn't want to!!  

Recap - Yes, they have stated that the intent is to take guns away.  Because they haven't is a matter of a strong, robust opposition to concept.



As for Obama's previous intent -

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to a case where a homeowner defended himself against a burglar who broke into his house....twice!  Hale DeMar.  The state law was to give homeowners some measure of 'castle doctrine' protection - provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.  Twice.  The governor vetoed it when it did pass, which was overridden.

Written a little over-dramatically, but covers the basics....
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-01-22/news/0401220356_1_alarm-bedroom-police

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

[heironymouspasparagus]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

What would you call it when he votes against peoples right to defend themselves in their own home?   Twice.





Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Feb 11, 2008 interview.  Pre-Potomac primary interview by ABC7 and Politico.


Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.



We could also address the actual problems that cause the "violence on the streets" - it is illicit drug activity.  Creating profits that fuel the demand for a variety of illegal things, including guns, drugs, murder, prostitution, burglary, robbery, etc.   Where is the effort to eliminate the profit?  Eliminate the root cause??

Instead we keep wasting time, energy, money on things that don't even address the symptoms, let alone the root cause!   Because "the light is better over here..."

[cannon_fodder]

Obama has acted repeatedly - as has Hillary - that their intent is to remove guns from private ownership.  They and many others explicitly support the agenda of the Brady Bunch Clown Show.

You mean that horrible Republican Brady and the horrible Republican Congress that passed the Brady Bill? Where they required gun dealers to actually verify the statements made that the buyer was legally allowed to own a firearm. The horror! Thanks Obama (for not being Republican and not having anything to do with the Brady Bill, I guess?)

Both Hillary and Obama have repeatedly and consistently said that they do not intend to remove guns from citizens who are legally allowed to possess firearms. Not only have they said they aren't going to do it, they actually haven't made any attempts at doing it. It has as much basis in reality as the news story that Trump won't release his tax returns because it shows donations to NAMBLA. A really fun conspiracy theory, but no basis in reality.

If Obama and/or Hillary was a dictator with no checks, do I think they would enact stronger gun control than Donald "I was in favor of gun control before I was against it" Drumpf? Sure (until Donald changes his mind again). Obama and Hillary would both allow local governments to restrict conceal carry or open carry. They would have stronger background checks. They would try to ban new assault rifles. I can see either of them doing those things. But those restrictions in no way amount to "taking our guns away!!!1!!1!!1!!" They are in no way trying to ban private citizens from owning guns. It's just nonsense for a huge number of reasons (ignoring the shear logistics [hi, we'd like 340 million guns please-] the fact that police/military wouldn't implement it, the fact it wouldn't pass Congress, the fact that Courts wouldn't uphold it on 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment grounds).

In 2008 the NRA warned that Obama was going to introduce a "10 point plan" to change the 2nd Amendment. In 2000 the NRA warned that the Democrats in Congress had a plan to take away all privately owned semi automatic weapons. Now Hillary has a secret plan. Eventually, you have to just admit its bluster, a scare tactic, and a conspiracy theory to keep the cash and influence rolling in. You can only cry wolf a decade or two before rational people stop listening to you.

/sorry for the thread drift