raleturd the point is why would we dismiss what a politician has to say? We don't for Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or Barack Obama or anyone. If she doesn't believe in gun confiscation she never should've said that shit about Australia.
You keep trying to link Clinton to gun confiscation but have completely failed to do so. Why do you think that is? Maybe because there is no link. Don't feel bad, there's at least two other guys with recent posts here who haven't done it either. No smoke, no fire.
Well, you've gone to the juvenile name calling and produced not a scintilla of evidence that Clinton is looking to confiscate guns so I'll just consider this over. Feel free to come back when you have something to work with.
You are a clown. I asked the simple question, what does Hillary mean when she applauds the Australian gun rules implemented in '96. You still haven't answered that and probably don't even understand what happened in Australia in '96 based on your responses so far. Hillary says "it's worth a shot to try" what Australia did. Please tell us. What do you think she means by that? It's an easy question. Answer it.
I just think at the end of the day Bernie Sanders was a terrible presidential candidate overall and there is nothing he could've done to fix that. The railing on wall street stuff is his only schtick. A decent candidate would've defeated Hillary. It's lookin like Hillary will more likely than not be our next President and she will have beaten a couple creampuffs to get there. Like winning the AFC South with a 7-9 record, gettin to the superbowl and the opposing team's QB shows up drunk and injured for the big game. You are last person standing but Idk if that makes you a winner. That's what is scary to me. Normally our Presidential candidates go through hell to get the White House - not a coronation.
I keep asking you to show her applauding Australia gun rules. You haven't. You made the claim, you back it up. She was asked at a community forum about Australia's program; she said it was "worth considering." Isn't any program that reduces gun violence at least worthy of consideration? I also see that you also must be out of ammo, so to speak, because you, too have conceded by resorting to juvenile name calling. Get back to us when you have a fact to relate instead of unsubstantiated pap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67 It's worth considering a mandatory gun buyback program. But she doesn't want our guns. Got it. Makes sense, if you're completely full of shit.
I honestly don't think many of them give a shit about that, many of the ones I know feel the system is fucked and out of spite they will vote against her. I'm not a Sanders guy but I do feel some sympathy for his supporters as this bullshit with super delegates has really put Bernie so far behind the 8 ball that he never really had a real shot. For example, the CA Primary is weeks away yet he's already lost almost all of the super delegates in that state. That's not how this should work. I found out who the super delegates in my state were and many of them are in electable positions so I will vote against them based on principle.
con·sid·er·a·tion kənˌsidərˈāSH(ə)n/ noun noun: consideration 1. careful thought, typically over a period of time. "a long process involving a great deal of careful consideration" synonyms: thought, deliberation, reflection, contemplation, rumination, meditation;More examination, inspection, scrutiny, analysis, discussion; attention, regard; formalcogitation "your case needs careful consideration" a fact or a motive taken into account in deciding or judging something. plural noun: considerations Thanks for proving my point. You take a fragment of a statement and don't understand what it means and use that to create a bizarre scenario. I have tried to get you to critically examine that on which you base your beliefs but you are apparently unable to do so. Carry on, keep following the lead of those who will take you down that garden path. Maybe some day you'll understand. I can lead you to water but you'd rather drink the NRA Kool-Aid.
I think it's worth considering using the way Nazi's treated Jews here on a national level. Nothing to worry about. Just a consideration. Dipshit.
Can you rephrase that? It reads poorly. The first paragraph that is (the second one was easy to read)
You see that new law they passed in CT that says you can have your guns taken away just for having a temporary restraining order? Talk about totally going around due process. And now CT Senator Blumenthal (I think he was the guy who lied about serving in Vietnam and yet still was elected, not sure if it was him though) is gonna introduce it in the US senate for a national bill like what CT has. But yea, the dems dont want to come after my guns.
We should strongly consider shutting down some of the country's Mosque's. How's that? You cool with that statement? Since it's only consideration, Muslims in this country shouldn't be concerned with the politician who said it.
Thanks. I'm sure there were references further back but I'm not that vested in the convo. But I'm a little confused. In your example (I assume) you believe that the mosques would never get shut down and the politicians "considering it" is just them blowing hot air. So along that train of thought, Clinton saying that she would consider doing something about guns is equally as dismissive and you really have nothing to worry about.
What Clinton can do and what she wants to do are obviously two different things. Any reasonable person understands and acknowledges that. But when someone says we should consider something, it's also reasonable to assume they want to do that thing.
So Clinton wants to get rid of guns and Trump wants to get rid of Muslims. I love election season almost as much as draft season.
Not sure what new CT law you're referring to, but in domestic violence, stalking and similar matters, I'm pretty sure losing your guns is standard just about everywhere. If there is sufficient cause to warrant imposing a temporary restraining order (which severely restricts a defendant's fundamental rights, by the way), there is sufficient cause to temporarily suspend the right to possess a firearm. If the defendant disagrees with the temporary order there is all kinds of process available.
He did in multiple debates, but whether anyone listened is another question. He brought up the discrepancy in Iraq votes and regime change quite a bit, including the debate just before the NY primary. I'm not sure whether that same message was thrown into ads or anything else though. The media did a good job of not highlighting it. Except until after the NY primary when the NY Times pointed out her hawkishness to appeal to a different constituency haha.
That's a good law as long as the person who has the guns taken away has a way to get them back if he's not an angry guy on a mission. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that lunatics have a right to own guns. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the criminals have a right to own guns. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that people with a history of anger management problems have a right to own guns. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that people who have been found likely to present immediate danger to one or more persons by a court of law have a right to own guns. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment is a lot more secure when you begin to qualify it in terms that cuts down the number of shootings and fatalities that free gun ownership causes. The CT law does just that. It takes a class of individual (people who present a clear and present danger to other specific people) and it removes one of the easiest ways to harm those people.
