Clinton and her views on guns.

Trial153

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
2,529
Location
New York
Sanders killed here in that debate. I was surprised on his answers pertaining to guns vs Hillery, she defiantly to a father left position then he did on the issue.
In general they gave hillary a pass in that debate, on someone teetering on the edge of an indictment they really let her off the hook. The moderators should go find a new line of work.
 

MtnWest

New member
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
692
Location
Boise
I was hoping he would use an analogy like a DWI or suing GM for someone driving into a crowd.
 

double_a85

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
431
Location
Roundup, MT
As usual the word "automatic" used where it should't be. In her view, if you get drunk and kill someone in a DWI, Budweiser should be sued. This is nothing more than a way to put gun manufacturers out of business in her corrupt mind.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-and-clinton-clash-over-guns-at-debate-040537046.html

Yes sue Budweiser... or maybe even Chevrolet for allowing that person to drive drunk. Greedy corporations need to be held responsible in her eyes, right?
 

noharleyyet

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
28,005
Location
TEXAS
“What you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America,” said Sanders. “I don’t agree with that.”- Sanders

..check, game, set, match to Sanders. But that's not why the topic was cherry picked and advanced by the Mr, Kopf's poignancy..A predetermined gotcha moment at Sander's expense.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,994
Location
Bozeman, MT
Not defending Hillary, doesn't anyone think the beer analogy is kinda dumb? You note the absurdity of suing the beer industry, but the beer industry doesn't need a law protecting them. Why should the gun industry need one? The law is temporary dependent on administration/congress. It is an incredibly stupid long term plan to set your protections that way, but it does make for one hell of a fundraising opportunity every election.

It may have been better to have a lawsuit against a gun maker go to the SCOTUS so a precedent is set.

Just my two cents.
rg
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,994
Location
Bozeman, MT
..check, game, set, match to Sanders. But that's not why the topic was cherry picked and advanced by the Mr, Kopf's poignancy..A predetermined gotcha moment at Sander's expense.
Based on what I read, it was a totally inappropriate question. Pretty damn disgusting that it was allowed.
 

beginnerhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
1,174
Not defending Hillary, doesn't anyone think the beer analogy is kinda dumb? You note the absurdity of suing the beer industry, but the beer industry doesn't need a law protecting them. Why should the gun industry need one? The law is temporary dependent on administration/congress. It is an incredibly stupid long term plan to set your protections that way, but it does make for one hell of a fundraising opportunity every election.

It may have been better to have a lawsuit against a gun maker go to the SCOTUS so a precedent is set.

Just my two cents.
rg

True. But it's too late now. SCOTUS is about to be 5-4 against gun rights.

If Hillary wins I think there is a good chance the federal land sell-off issue goes away. Hopefully Republicans keep enough seats to stop serious legislative gun control threats. But we will still end up with a liberal SCOTUS. And that may be even more important.

If Cruz wins we'll see a push for federal land sell-off but most Republicans already dislike the guy. Will there be enough push back from them to stop a Cruz led sell-off?? Is it worth risking to keep a conservative SCOTUS?
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
14,042
Location
Cedar, MI
True. But it's too late now. SCOTUS is about to be 5-4 against gun rights.

If Hillary wins I think there is a good chance the federal land sell-off issue goes away. Hopefully Republicans keep enough seats to stop serious legislative gun control threats. But we will still end up with a liberal SCOTUS. And that may be even more important.

If Cruz wins we'll see a push for federal land sell-off but most Republicans already dislike the guy. Will there be enough push back from them to stop a Cruz led sell-off?? Is it worth risking to keep a conservative SCOTUS?

If Cruz wins, we'll have a court that thinks public lands are unconstitutional and that corporate power trumps all else, because money now equals speech under Citizens United.

As for Hillary & gun control, the House will stay Republican and while the senate might flip this cycle, it's still not going to be enough to beat cloture. At worst you'd see something similar to Manchin-Toomey, which still wouldn't pass the House.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,225
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Like I said before. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee our right to public lands. With one law they can start the process to give them away.

For sportsman, I see only Trump or Bernie. Then you look to see who will do more damage if elected.

So by default it goes to Bernie. He hasn't done much with any legislation of his own so he won't be able to hurt us in the Socialistic department.

Clinton is a no for me.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
12,578
Location
Where the Wild Things Are
Like I said before. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee our right to public lands. With one law they can start the process to give them away.

For sportsman, I see only Trump or Bernie. Then you look to see who will do more damage if elected.

So by default it goes to Bernie. He hasn't done much with any legislation of his own so he won't be able to hurt us in the Socialistic department.

Clinton is a no for me.

Took the words out of my mouth.
 

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,830
Like I said before. The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee our right to public lands. With one law they can start the process to give them away.

For sportsman, I see only Trump or Bernie. Then you look to see who will do more damage if elected.

So by default it goes to Bernie. He hasn't done much with any legislation of his own so he won't be able to hurt us in the Socialistic department.

Clinton is a no for me.


You left out Trump is flat out embarrassing.
 

beginnerhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
1,174
Yeah I can't decide this year. Cruz is a no go for me. Trump is an ass clown. Hillary is practically a felon. Rubio is a like a neutered puppy. Bernie wants to increase my taxes (a lot).

Just going to have to trust Providence I guess. Sad that I'm actually thinking Trump may be best option. Wait, no never mind. Ah crap. Trump/Rubio/Hillary > Bernie/Cruz maybe? This is the worst...
 
Top