If Hillary is elected, will something really bad happen?

Post Reply New Topic

I think I am reasonably knowledgeable about the charge of how the "evil, evil commie Democrats" are going to take away everyone's guns is nothing more than paranoia spread by the likes of the NRA and the GOA.

What does knowledge of guns, or even existing gun laws, have to do with the price of tea in China in this instance?

Only according to the leadership of the NRA.

Yes, you can repeat moronic talking points with the best of them, I'll give you that.



It means knowing what is and is not effective law wise, knowing the history of who proposed what law and why, and knowing the results of what laws are being championed. Hillary has said point blank that she thinks Heller, the SCOTUS case recognizing an individual right to own firearms, was wrongly decided, and that she'd choose her nominees accordingly. More worryingly to me, she made repealing the PLCIAA a major part of her campaign in coming at Bernie Sanders from the left, and the only reason you'd go after that law is if you wanted to back door bankrupt the domestic firearms manufacturers through frivolous and expensive litigation, just like the first Clinton administration tried to. Then, of course, we've got the one thing Hillary and Trump agreed on, denying people their 2nd amendment rights through a secret and unaccountable government list, the various "assault weapons" bans being batted around at various times that even the man who invented them admits are a smokescreen for a later, larger ban, Hillary's support for Australian style gun control, i.e. confiscation, etc.

Like I said, if you actually knew what you were talking about, none of this would be news to you. In fact, none of this should be news to you, as I've said it to you before, but since it conflicts with your partisan ideology, it just rolls off.

C'mon, gun rights aren't going anywhere, anymore than abortion rights, and I think you know that.

Foes of abortion and foes of guns have a similar problem: The Supreme Court, which says government cannot ban either one outright. What to do? Increasingly, the two advocacy movements are resorting to a similar solution: targeted regulation.

Abortion opponents started the trend and have it almost down to a science. Instead of trying to restrict abortion itself, they seek to impose rules that either raise barriers to individuals, such as waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds, or crack down on clinics.

The latter tactic has spread like a fungus across the South, where states are adopting regulations, ostensibly for safety, so stringent they are forcing clinics to close. The rules include building codes like those here in Virginia, which stipulate such fine-grained details as hallway widths and parking-space counts. Another common approach requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Those sound like common-sense measures that nobody but a pro-abortion extremist could find objectionable. Shouldn't EMTs be able to wheel a gurney down a hallway if something goes wrong?

The practical effect on abortion safety, however, is immeasurably minute. As Tarina Keene of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia noted recently, the rate of complications from abortions is considerably lower than the rate for "other common outpatient surgical procedures like biopsies, colonoscopies, [and] even oral and laser eye surgeries."

As Keene and other supporters of abortion rights note, the real purpose of such rules is patently obvious: to make abortion less available. The pro-life activists who agitate for such rules often suggest otherwise, claiming—as the Family Foundation of Virginia's Victoria Cobb did recently—that their sole concern is patient safety. If that were so, then one would expect them to seek similar regulation for other outpatient facilities, but they never do.

Sometimes abortion foes will drop the pretense. Tanya Britton, a board member of Pro-Life Mississippi, did so recently when she explained the goal behind a push to pass an admitting-privilege regulation. "These incremental laws are part of a greater strategy to end abortion in our country," she said. "It's part of it, and one day, our country will be abortion free."

All of which brings us to Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has unloaded a set of regulations meant to govern gun stores. You couldn't legally own a handgun in the Windy City until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on handgun ownership. Chicago responded to that ruling by passing a ban on the sale of guns within the city limits. A federal judge found that unconstitutional, too. He gave the city six months to adopt a different ordinance.

The new rules—modeled on those adopted as part of a legal settlement in New York—will achieve much the same result. Gun shops could locate only in certain commercial areas, and never within 500 feet of a school or park. That effectively bans them from (yes, really) 99.5 percent of all real estate in the city. In addition, shops would have to videotape transactions. Customers would face a one-gun-a-month limit, a 72-hour waiting period for pistol purchases, and a 24-hour wait for long-gun purchases. Shops would be audited, employees subject to background checks, and more.

Proponents claim the measures are just "sensible gun-safety laws." That seems highly dubious. Before that ban, 80 percent of the guns the police recovered in criminal investigations came from nearby suburbs, or from out of state. And if the new rules take effect? Eighty percent of them will continue to come from outside the city limits. The rules promise to have about as much impact as those signs declaring certain areas "drug-free school zones."

Yet Chicago clearly wants to do through zoning and similar means what it could not do directly: make it prohibitively difficult to buy a gun legally in the city. It's doing precisely what abortion opponents are trying to do in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and other states. If Chicago succeeds, you can bet that other cities will embrace the same tactics.

But it might not succeed. As The New York Times noted recently about the targeted regulation of abortion providers, "legal experts say the legislation is raising a fundamental question: At what point is access to abortion so limited that it violates the right to the procedure" granted by the Supreme Court?

In 1992 the high court upheld certain restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods and parental consent, but stipulated that states could not impose an "undue burden" through regulation. The proliferation of regulations governing admitting privileges, building standards, and so forth is testing precisely what that term means. No similar court ruling has forbidden states or cities to impose an undue burden on gun rights. But proposals like Chicago's could produce one.

And that would be a good thing. Regulations are problematic enough when they are written for legitimate reasons, such as preventing fraud and ensuring clean drinking water. Perverting their purpose to undermine constitutional rights is a dark, dishonest, and sinister game—no matter who plays it.

Funny you should mention abortion rights, as anti-gun people are very similar to anti-abortion people in several significant ways.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/09/a ... abortion-t

No strraight from her and her daughters mouths during interviews.

Even so, I seriously doubt she'd ever accomplish it, as over half the country - Democrats and Republicans - wouldn't ever surrender their gun rights.

Sly-

In all seriousness, there's way too much national opposition to an absolute gun ban. And even if they could make guns illegal, there are doubtlessly more guns in America than there is people, and that makes it absolutely impossible to take everyone's guns.
I admit, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a gun banner. I see nothing wrong with ordinary citizens owning guns, as long as they're not criminals, or have provable violent mental illness, or insane religious or political beliefs. That said, I don't like the idea of nuts demonstrating their right to bear arms by going out everyday with their assault rifles in hand (and yes, there are people who do that). That, and I see nothing wrong with common sense regulations.

Our right to keep and bear arms is established with the Second Amendment and our right to Self Defense is recognized by the Ninth Amendment. There is no way of illegalizing fire-arms in the U.S.

Sly-

In all seriousness, there's way too much national opposition to an absolute gun ban. And even if they could make guns illegal, there are doubtlessly more guns in America than there is people, and that makes it absolutely impossible to take everyone's guns.
I admit, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I'm not a gun enthusiast, or a gun banner. I see nothing wrong with ordinary citizens owning guns, as long as they're not criminals, or have provable violent mental illness, or insane religious or political beliefs. That said, I don't like the idea of nuts demonstrating their right to bear arms by going out everyday with their assault rifles in hand (and yes, there are people who do that). That, and I see nothing wrong with common sense regulations.

Tell that to me York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California,Washington DC, Chicago, Hilary Clinton , Obama, senator frienstien, Bloomberg, etc

I'm independent, my parents are Republicans, I believe they are well-meaning and wise. They never said anything that directly indicates that the end of the world will happen to some big tragedy if Clinton wins, but they think Clinton is a mean person (but we know that both candidates lie and say things). Now, let's say I know some people who I will assume are wise. These are people I interacted with on a right-wing conservative discussion forum, something being said like "Things will suck, there will probably be a nuclear war in two years, but until then, we have all we can enjoy." This is such an insult because I am too young to die. Why can't God spare us all from the end if it were to happen? Why can't God just wait until everybody is old? Why does there have to be some poor young people when the world ends?

But I think conservatives can be wiser than liberals at times like these. What do you think and how do I stop from exploding in anger, because I don't think God spares anyone from tragedy, no matter how hard you pray or how good you perform.

Fire-arms are still legal even if City and State laws make them difficult to obtain. And the criminals have all the fire-arms they think they need. There are close to 400,000,000 legal fire-arms out their. That is more than one per person in the U.S. on the average....

Since Clinton is more or less the status quo candidate, and Trump is supposed to be the revisionist candidate one would expect sudden change (whether its good or bad) when Trump is sworn in, and just the same old good/bad stuff continuing if Hillary is sworn in.

So your question doesnt really make sense- unless you are talking about the supernatural ( that you think that God will punish us for electing Clinton).

But even then its not obvious why God would favor either of the two leading candidates. Trump and Clinton are both quite secular, and quite "godless" (though Trump's running mate is an Evangelical).

If doomsday is gonna happen on January 20th 2017 I seriously doubt it would make any difference which person gets sworn in that day. If God plans to kick our asses that day it wont matter who we will have voted in. Were doomed, or not doomed, either way.

Yes, and while pro life politicians have made life difficult for abortion providers and their patience, I seriously doubt said pro-lifers will ever eradicate legalization. Same with gun rights. In both cases, opposition to certain rights has gone to indefensible extremes. But what can you do, but toll with the punches.