Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course the president is not king of the states or the congress. Even a Democratic congress will do no more than some background check thing.
And pass an assault weapons ban, and subvert due process by banning people arbitrarily put on no fly lists from buying guns, and whatever other scheme they can think of. If youwant to know what a Democratic controlled government would do to gun ownership, than all one need do is look to areas where the government is controlled by Democrats. Look at gun laws in states like New Jersey, New York, or California.
Quote:
So the main concern seems to be the long-term impact of whatever Hillary's potential supreme court nominees will be.
Obviously, the longer Republicans are out of the white house, the less influence they'll have on the Supreme Court. However, the only ones in danger of retiring based on age alone are Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer. I expect Ginsburg to step down soon after a Hillary victory. Probably Breyer not long after. The big danger is Kennedy.
I can see how they might be concerned about this. Losing Kennedy would put a Democratic-appointed lock on SCOTUS for a while. But you know, it's not guaranteed. Look at David Souter - a Bush 1 nominee who turned out not to be as conservative as promised.
Obviously all of the Republican nominees were on the same page on gun rights. I can't fathom why they would nominate Donald Trump - clearly one of the weakest of their 17 choices this year in a general election, if gaining the presidency for the supreme court was so important.
#1, you seem to be forgetting about the vacancy that currently exists on the Supreme Court after Scalia's death. Filling that vacancy alone will give Liberals the majority and a "Democratic lock" on the court.
#2, you seem to be neglecting to take in to account what a Hillary presidency will likely due to the demographics of the country, and what that will due to voting patterns. If Hillary leaves the borders open and legalizes millions of illegal immigrants, who are reliably Democratic voters, good luck ever getting another conservative Republican elected, which means the court will be lost forever.
The AWB amounted to next to nothing, the poster asked you about the 2nd amendment.
Some of these gun owners need to look beyond the 2nd amendment and take a government 101 class on how a bill becomes a law and how an amendment is removed.
The Second Amendment doesn't HAVE to be "removed" for it to be rendered effectively meaningless. All a Clinton Supreme Court would have to do is say that it applies "collectively" to militias and that it is satisfied by the National Guard and BOOM, the Second Amendment, as we know it, is abolished, and Federal / State governments will be free to pass any gun law they wish, including banning ownership for private citizens.
I have no illusions that you'll reply to this post, as I'm someone who posseses a little more knowledge than you're comfortable with and so, obviously, cannot be fooled by your disingenuous, false reassurances, but that is what they are, false.
The Second Amendment doesn't HAVE to be "removed" for it to be rendered effectively meaningless. All a Clinton Supreme Court would have to do is say that it applies "collectively" to militias and that it is satisfied by the National Guard and BOOM, the Second Amendment, as we know it, is abolished, and Federal / State governments will be free to pass any gun law they wish, including banning ownership for private citizens.
I have no illusions that you'll reply to this post, as I'm someone who posseses a little more knowledge than you're comfortable with and so, obviously, cannot be fooled by your disingenuous, false reassurances, but that is what they are, false.
What do you think the odds are that a majority of the justices would radically change an amendment to make it completely ineffective, do you have a history on your side? Even allowing women the right to vote was through amendment yet you believe that a court would rule so radically to make a prior legislation inconsequential.
This is what drives the gun lobby, these outlandish "what if's".
The AWB amounted to next to nothing, the poster asked you about the 2nd amendment.
Some of these gun owners need to look beyond the 2nd amendment and take a government 101 class on how a bill becomes a law and how an amendment is removed.
Ask the Japanese Americans who were sent to camps if any of their constitutional rights were destroyed?
No one is saying someday the 2nd amendment would be actually removed, like the official process. The whole gun debate has never been about actually removing an amendment. At least so far...
And everyone, play a fun game with me. Next time you in a group, see who can go thru as many of the amendments as possible. Maybe not exactly word for word but at least know the basic points. I have found conservatives are far more likely to win. Your mileage may vary.
actually why don't we all just ask ourselves, how many do YOU know? No cheating of course, no googling!
What do you think the odds are that a majority of the justices would radically change an amendment to make it completely ineffective
Considering that it nearly happened the first time the issue went before the court, I'd say the odds aren't all that bad. One vote, ONE vote is all that prevented the Second Amendment from being renderred ineffective the first time around. That vote is now dead and gone. Had it went the other way, the 2A would basically be a moot provision that didn't really mean anything today.
Supreme Court icon and Liberal hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't seem to think it's all that far-fetched either....
Quote:
The write-up of an interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times contained the following:
[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.
The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.
“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
This is not the first time that Ginsburg has shared her desire to overturn Heller. On December 17, 2009, Ginsburg delivered a lecture titled “The Role of Dissenting Opinions” to the Harvard Club of Washington, D.C., a version of which was later published in the Minnesota Law Review. In the lecture, Ginsburg described Stevens and Breyer’s dissents in Heller as “appealing to the intelligence of a future day.” Insultingly, Ginsburg listed the - in her view incorrect - Heller decision, which recognized a fundamental right, alongside the notorious Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which extinguished the rights of African Americans.
Don't ask me to do your research for you. I'm certain there are instances where the court has totally and radically upturned a previous opinion. Brown v. Board comes to mind, where Plessy v. Furguson was overturned. In that instance, it was a good thing, but it just goes to show that it is not unheard of.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-13-2016 at 06:09 PM..
Show me where Hillary has said she wants to eliminate the second amendment. All i've heard her talk about is toughening up gun laws so nut jobs are less likely to acquire guns.
Always the same thing. "Tougher gun laws will make it harder for criminals a d wackos to get guns". Sure, that sounds great. Can't be against keeping guns away from the goblins. Problem is, these new laws being scuttled about, like rats, in the cellars of the minds of politicians and blind followers of the same, won't do anything to stop criminals and nuts from getting, and using, firearms.
Time and again, new, "tougher", laws, regulations and, of course, higher fees and taxes, have been imposed on firearms acquisition. Ownership of firearms, completely banned, in many, urban ,locations. The only people effected? People who would use firearms for lawful purposes, under our Constitution. Criminals are not going to fill out applications, pay fees and taxes, get some sort of firearms owners ID number, or any such administrative drivel. Background checks for firearms purchased are already the law, I have , personally, witnessed felons denied under this, their attempt to obtain a gun reported to the police, and EVERY SINGLE TIME, no LE action was taken. And expanding this , you think will be better enforced?
Proposed background checks for private purchases won't effect anyone but the lawful, either. This fantasy "gun show loophole" does not even exist. By requiring private owners and sellers to do background checks, a central registry, and a firearms owners ID#, system , will have to be created. Which is the true aim of such proposals, not making it tougher on criminals. Its all nothing but back door legislation, designed to give the government more power over lawful gun owners. So they know who has what. Won't tell them anything about illegal guns in criminal hands. Oh, but it will make ALL lawful owners, who fail, or refuse, to register into criminals. Again, the true intent of the proposed legislation.
Next up, anyone who decides they need a firearm, will have to demonstrate that need. Justify themselves to the feds and/ or state government. If I decide I need a gun, ghats my bhsiness. Not the governments or a gaggle of harpy, leftist, rabbits. Another fact that needs addressing, is just how many guns , obtained by criminals, come from our , ever so concerned, k owns what's best for us, government. Crates of weapons, stolen from government storage, police evidence storage, military bases, in a recent case, a federal agents weapon was stolen from his vehicle, and used in a murder a short time later. By an illegal alien.
Firearms laws and regulations need to halt, right where they are. No further laws are required. States and municipalities , who have banned guns, require exorbitant fees to obtain them, along with registration and ID databases, need to rescind these measures, and follow the Constitution. These things are all that's needed in the way of "gun control". That is how I see it, that is all I have to say...
I can guarantee I am protecting my 2nd amendment rights more than you are. I live in a very liberal state, with very strict gun laws, and I still have my gun legally and even my extremely liberal governor isn't threatening to take it from me. If you care so much, why not vote for the candidate that's willing to protect your Constitutional rights? Here's a clue, it's not Trump or Clinton.
i havent hear trump say anything yet about banning guns, or wanting the second amendment repealed, on the other hand i HAVE heard clinton say those things.
i havent hear trump say anything yet about banning guns, or wanting the second amendment repealed, on the other hand i HAVE heard clinton say those things.
There is more to the Constitution than just the 2nd and only one party that runs on protecting it.
i havent hear trump say anything yet about banning guns, or wanting the second amendment repealed, on the other hand i HAVE heard clinton say those things.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowtired14
There is more to the Constitution than just the 2nd and only one party that runs on protecting it.
What do you mean by this?
BTW - Logically, if the citizens are ultimately responsible for defending the Constitution against a tyrannical government run amok, they must be armed, otherwise there is nothing to protect the words written on paper, whether it be the 1st or any other amendments.
Think about that for a few minutes.
BTW - Logically, if the citizens are ultimately responsible for defending the Constitution against a tyrannical government run amok, they must be armed, otherwise there is nothing to protect the words written on paper, whether it be the 1st or any other amendments.
Think about that for a few minutes.
I can guarantee if you eliminate private ownership of firearms, or a outright ban of the second amendment, you will watch all of the other amendment's be stripped to almost nothing in just a few years. The second amendment is the teeth in the US constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The second amendment is the teeth in the US constitution. 
