The New American Politics thread

[GGG]

Clinton is campaigning on restricting gun ownership of you are on a watch list
Clinton will appoint judges who are not originalists.

These things will increase restrictions on gun ownership. You are a fool if you don't think these things matter

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Clinton is campaigning on restricting gun ownership of you are on a watch list
Clinton will appoint judges who are not originalists.

These things will increase restrictions on gun ownership. You are a fool if you don't think these things matter

You are a fool if you think they matter. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will every affect the 2nd amendment and gun ownership rights without a constitutional amendment, and that will not happen without a massive mandate from the electorate. The lobbyists who own the issue will make sure of that. Again, you need to understand how the American system works, because you're living in dream land believing that a presidential candidate, or even a massively popular president, can make these changes. The system is not setup that way.

[GGG]

Do you want to wager that if Clinto wins the presidency by the end of four years gun ownership will have been restricted in some way?

This would include terror watch list prohibitions or background checks at gun shows. And also include any 5-4 court decisions in do our of restrictions.

An example of one of the more recent court cases where having a different judge would have made a difference is this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062802134.html

[station]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you want to wager that if Clinto wins the presidency by the end of four years gun ownership will have been restricted in some way?

This would include terror watch list prohibitions or background checks at gun shows. And also include any 5-4 court decisions in do our of restrictions.

An example of one of the more recent court cases where having a different judge would have made a difference is this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062802134.html

I think you're shifting the goal posts. The discussion is whether Hillary can and will "destroy the second amendment" as Trump claims. Of course there are other ways she could affect gun ownership i.e background checks but that's hardly the same thing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you want to wager that if Clinto wins the presidency by the end of four years gun ownership will have been restricted in some way?

This would include terror watch list prohibitions or background checks at gun shows. And also include any 5-4 court decisions in do our of restrictions.

An example of one of the more recent court cases where having a different judge would have made a difference is this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062802134.html

I personally wouldn't wager on anything like this, since they never seem to be able to do much about guns down there, but are you arguing that restrictions on people on terror watch lists and background checks at gun shows are bad things?

Or are you just trying to make the point that something will be done?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GGG

It isn't an unreasonable statement to say than gun ownership will be more restricted under a Clinton presidency then a trump one. And since people don't spilt tickets anymore a vote for Clinton is a vote for a democratic senate whee senate races are being held and is a vote for more restrictive gun rules.

You called this statement bull####. That is false.

Of course it's a good thing. You seem to be arguing that Supreme Court appointments and a Clinton presidency won't make a difference in regards to gun control.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by station

I think you're shifting the goal posts. The discussion is whether Hillary can and will "destroy the second amendment" as Trump claims. Of course there are other ways she could affect gun ownership i.e background checks but that's hardly the same thing.

To the true believers any form of gun control in any way is "destroying the second amendment". There is only freedom.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by station

I think you're shifting the goal posts. The discussion is whether Hillary can and will "destroy the second amendment" as Trump claims. Of course there are other ways she could affect gun ownership i.e background checks but that's hardly the same thing.

Destroy the 2nd amendment is hyperbole but put in judges who will rule more favourably on gun control is a clear outcome of a Clinton presidency.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't see how it is hypocrisy in any way. Saying she wants better background checks to get guns off the streets isn't saying that she thinks the Secret Service, police and specially trained security should be disarmed.

I agree, just pointing out Trumps intentions.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you want to wager that if Clinto wins the presidency by the end of four years gun ownership will have been restricted in some way?

This would include terror watch list prohibitions or background checks at gun shows. And also include any 5-4 court decisions in do our of restrictions.

An example of one of the more recent court cases where having a different judge would have made a difference is this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062802134.html

I'll take a wager that Clinton, as president, makes any constitutional restrictions on guns in any way. That is what is being discussed. Executive orders not withstanding, as they are questionable as to their constitutionality, the president has no power to make any changes to law. That is not his role. Second, the president cannot just appoint a judge cart blanche. They must go through the confirmation process. The 2nd amendment is untouchable, even by the most liberal judges. That won't change.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

Clinton doesn't have that type of capital. Not even remotely close. Obama, coming off of a successful eight year term as president, doesn't have that capital. You don't change the constitution or make amendments without having both the house and the senate in your pocket. That is why they happen so little.



Bull####. You don't know what you are talking about. It doesn't matter if the Democrats own both houses and the presidency, no one is going to take a run at the 2nd amendment without having massive support. That would require the Dems owning a 66 seat majority in the senate and a 288 seat majority in the house. That would require a 40+ seat swing in the house of representatives and a senate pickup of 22 seats. That means the Democats would have to win the White House, pickup 21 of 34 seats available in the senate, and then pick up 102 seats in the house of representatives. Pretty well impossible based on the way the system is split. That's the math, and its not open for debate.

The suggestion being made is that a future SCOTUS could reverse the Heller decision and revoke an unlimited personal right to gun ownership.

Attempts to shout down these conversations reeks of an effort to ensure purity of loyalists.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'll take a wager that Clinton, as president, makes any constitutional restrictions on guns in any way. That is what is being discussed. Executive orders not withstanding, as they are questionable as to their constitutionality, the president has no power to make any changes to law. That is not his role. Second, the president cannot just appoint a judge cart blanche. They must go through the confirmation process. The 2nd amendment is untouchable, even by the most liberal judges. That won't change.

No one is takin about executive orders or Constitutional conventions. That's just obfuscation.

Scalia and the Heller decision changed the 2nd amendment. A future court could revise and reverse that ruling.
When Clinton was attacking Bernie as 'dangerous' on guns - what did she think was the difference between their policies?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No one is takin about executive orders or Constitutional conventions. That's just obfuscation.

Scalia and the Heller decision changed the 2nd amendment. A future court could revise and reverse that ruling.
When Clinton was attacking Bernie as 'dangerous' on guns - what did she think was the difference between their policies?

I thought she was referring to how Bernie got on his knees to protect gun manufacturers from legal responsibility when their guns are used in murders. For all his liberal leanings he definitely knew when to play to his state constituents regarding firearms.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The suggestion being made is that a future SCOTUS could reverse the Heller decision and revoke an unlimited personal right to gun ownership.

The Heller decision really did little to impact the 2nd amendment or gun ownership in the United States.

Attempts to shout down these conversations reeks of an effort to ensure purity of loyalists.

What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Gozer

No one is takin about executive orders or Constitutional conventions. That's just obfuscation.

Obfuscation? How so? That's the only way the president can create law, and that's the only way the 2nd amendment gets changed.

Scalia and the Heller decision changed the 2nd amendment. A future court could revise and reverse that ruling.

The 2nd amendment was not changed. The language remains the same. Something you are not taking into consideration is that gun laws are also entrenched in state constitutions. You really need to consider states rights and their impact on the overall landscape of gun ownership. If anything, gun controls are getting weaker because of states exercising their rights and removing restrictions and controls on guns. Obama has tried to place some level of controls on weapons, and how you get them, but the states have the right to ignore those directives and continue on, business as usual.

When Clinton was attacking Bernie as 'dangerous' on guns - what did she think was the difference between their policies?

Here is a real good article on why Heller is likely a challenge not worth taking on.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/th...erturn-heller/

"Those who believe a liberal Supreme Court would overturn Heller see the Justices as playing checkers when in fact they are playing chess. Even if the liberal Justices have no taste for gun rights, they are not going to overturn Heller in a fit of passion. The Justices understand the long game and they know that whatever they decide about the Second Amendment is not the final word. Their decision will be digested by We the People – and, if the Court goes too far, it will be rejected. As a result, we can expect to see Heller remain the law of the land for the foreseeable future no matter who fills Justice Scalia’s seat."

[ernie]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I'm all for calling out Trump, but this is a stretch. He was saying she would never disarm her guards to show her hypocrisy, not to incite people to kill her.

Nope don't buy it. There is no hypocrisy as Clinton has never even suggested that law enforcement shouldn't have weapons (and that's what the secret service is). Nor is Clinton the one who makes up the rules of law enforcement conduct. when it come to her secret service detail.

Given his past statements he knew exactly what he was implying. There is no other way to interpret the "Let's see what happens" and "it would be very dangerous" parts of his statement other than he believes violence would be done to her without the armed service around her. It's beyond good guy with a gun BS. IT moves into the realm of telling everyone she's such a horrible person that without the guards people would kill her.

And let's not forget that a very large majority of americans actually want what Clinton and democrats have been promoting when it comes to background checks and no fly lists etc.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ernie

It's beyond good guy with a gun BS. IT moves into the realm of telling everyone she's such a horrible person that without the guards people would kill her.

You really don't think this could very well happen? There are some crazy people down there.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You really don't think this could very well happen? There are some crazy people down there.

Indeed there are and the Trump campaign likes to fan those flames and it's disgusting.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'll take a wager that Clinton, as president, makes any constitutional restrictions on guns in any way. That is what is being discussed. Executive orders not withstanding, as they are questionable as to their constitutionality, the president has no power to make any changes to law. That is not his role. Second, the president cannot just appoint a judge cart blanche. They must go through the confirmation process. The 2nd amendment is untouchable, even by the most liberal judges. That won't change.

Honest question; the Patriot Act seems to circumvent the sixth amendment what's to stop further such Acts from bypassing the second amendment? It seemed easy to bypass the right to a fair trial in the sixth amendment, why is the second untouchable?

[TheoFleury]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Honest question; the Patriot Act seems to circumvent the sixth amendment what's to stop further such Acts from bypassing the second amendment? It seemed easy to bypass the right to a fair trial in the sixth amendment, why is the second untouchable?

Because there are rich lobbyists that want to protect the 2nd amendment so they can continue to rake in billions off the sale of firearms. I don't think any of the corporate oligarchs really care about the 6th amendment, there's no money to be made there (not by protecting it anyway). All that matters in the US is money. Even with the right wing evangelicals, that is all that matters. They say Christ, but they mean Mammon.

The US is ####ed. We are watching it burn in slow motion before our very eyes.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Honest question; the Patriot Act seems to circumvent the sixth amendment what's to stop further such Acts from bypassing the second amendment?

Excellent question. Who drafted and passed the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II? It was not the POTUS but was congress. The bill went through the usual process, as defined by the constitution, and became law when President Bush signed the bill. Any changes in law are driven by congress, not the president. So for Clinton to make changes to the law she would first need a compliant congress to draft and pass the bill through both houses. Extremely unlikely to happen.

It seemed easy to bypass the right to a fair trial in the sixth amendment, why is the second untouchable?

There are plenty of arguments as to the coverage of the 6th amendment and how it applies to the Patriot Act. Speaking from experience, you mention terrorism and the Patriot Act trumps pretty much everything. Do I agree with the law? Nope. Not at all. Do I think it is unconstitutional? Hell yes. Has anyone managed to work the system and and challenge the law in any significant way? Nope. Just like FISA courts I think the way the lower courts give a warrant to anyone, just because they mention the word terror, is a travesty. But the law is law and became law through the process. You don't like the law, blame congress as they were the ones who failed to properly vet the language, language given to them by a Washington think tank. You can hate the law, but it was congress' fault. If you want to crap on Bush's forehead for anything associated with that law it would only be because he did not veto the bill.