Candidate Who Campaigned For New AWB Says She Isn't Going to Take Your Guns

Bartholomew Roberts · July 29, 2016, 02:15 PM

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...away-your-guns

I keep noticing this weird disconnect in talking with anti-gun people myself. They'll talk all about how "nobody is going to take your guns" in the same breath they advocate banning semi-automatics. If you wait long enough, they'll usually add a Feinstein-qualification of "If it were up to me..." as well.

Then they look at you like you're an ignorant rube because you believe someone wants to take your guns.

In any case, after campaigning for MONTHS on banning semi-autos, Hillary claims she doesn't want to take your guns. To be fair, as often as she has gotten away with directly contradicting an earlier statement she freely made, why not give it a try?

zukiphile · July 29, 2016, 02:23 PM

Quote:

In any case, after campaigning for MONTHS on banning semi-autos, Hillary claims she doesn't want to take your guns.

Also see: "If you like your [medical insurance] plan, you can keep it."

Old Bill Dibble · July 29, 2016, 02:46 PM

All I can say is she is right.

She isn't going to take away my guns.

Koda94 · July 30, 2016, 12:46 AM

isn’t there an old saying, the more outrageous the lie the more believable it is?

I saw a post on Facebook from an anti gun friend sharing a "fact checking" website article debunking Trumps claim that Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Bottom line they rated that claim false. Why, because Hillary hasn’t directly said so.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...linton-wants-/

**tyme** · July 30, 2016, 06:53 AM

Koda, that's from Joseph... Goebbels, not Biden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillary

I refuse to believe we can't find common ground here," she said. "We have to heal the divides in our country. Not just on guns. But on race. Immigration. And more. That starts with listening to each other. Hearing each other. Trying, as best we can, to walk in each other's shoes."

To paraphrase LawDog,

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once [before the NFA, GCA, various executive orders, AWBs and other magazine capacity and cosmetic feature limits, Lautenberg and Brady laws] a large and satisfying [GUN RIGHTS] cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about finding "common ground", and telling us everything will be fine if we learn to walk in each other's shoes.

mdemetz · July 30, 2016, 07:36 AM

Notice if their lips move when they say that.

natman · July 30, 2016, 09:58 AM

Quote:

It’s “worth considering” whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b02f6a900c5d67

Note that the "buyback" in Australia was mandatory. Confiscation with compensation is still confiscation.

http://i.imgur.com/ZUake07.jpg

**tyme** · July 30, 2016, 10:00 AM

While it isn't an explicit call to ban guns, as mentioned in that politifact page she did state in a recording* that the Supreme Court is wrong about the 2nd amendment. That means: no individual right. She can't be much clearer than that. No individual right means the government can ban your guns as long as it has a rational basis, which amounts to no basis at all.

It might not ban guns if it doesn't feel like it, but it *can*. It's left as an exercise to the reader what the 2nd amendment means if it doesn't guarantee an individual right. Since Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it? She can't be any more excited about the prospect of State-controlled militias taking up arms against an out-of-control federal government than she is about individuals owning arms.

Of course that's not confusion on her part, but merely another lie. Of course she doesn't care about the 2nd amendment and knows full well her interpretation makes it meaningless.

* Short audio of Hillary, on fighting the NRA and on the SCOTUS being wrong about guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk

**44 AMP** · July 30, 2016, 11:53 AM

"Nobody is trying to take your guns" ranks right up there with "The check is in the mail", "the dog ate my homework", and "I'll still respect you in the morning"....

Although, taken literally, "nobody", meaning no one single person, is trying to take our guns. No ONE person is, it's a group effort by a lot of different people!

The old joke about how to tell if a politician is lying is still true today...
(their lips move...

)

BarryLee · July 30, 2016, 12:15 PM

I believe the word Clintonian was coined to describe the ability to lie without actually lying. Remember the debate about the meaning of the word “is”? While the Clintons are not the only politicians to engage in doublespeak they are certainly experts at it.

zxcvbob · July 30, 2016, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Since Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it?

She means she doesn't want to actually repeal it (the honest way to get rid of it) because that's takes too long and is a lot of work. She wants to appoint high-ranking federal judges, especially to the USSC, who will reinterpret it to meaninglessness.

Koda94 · July 30, 2016, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it?

all you have to do is look at what other modern "civilised" countrys allow. Keep in mind none of them give their citizens a right to bear arms, but some of them "allow" their citizens military style weapons by permission, with a variety of laws and prohibitions including no CCW and in some cases virtually removing all lawful practical applications for using a firearm in self defense even in the home in some cases.

in other words, as long as its "possible" to own arms its still a "right"

Glenn E. Meyer · July 30, 2016, 02:29 PM

Said this elsewhere:

Quote:

Talk about guns: Hillary said:

1. We need common sense measures
2. She isn't coming for your guns
3. She isn't going to undo the 2nd Amend.

So talking to my beloved last night, we discussed if she wasn't so bad (recall this is a hypothetical discussion to exercise our minds).

I. What is common sense?

Tightening up the current mental illness reports for NICS as some states have been lax with them? Makes some sense. Increasing broad criteria for mental health to be a more inclusive ban tool?

Terror watch - list. Cornyn's version? Limited in extent with safeguards or ban many hundred thousands with no recourse?

Ban weapons of war as common sense?

II. Coming for them - what about expanded mental health of lists or terrorist suspects? Weapons of war? Will she say something like: We will not ban or confiscate any firearm that is currently legal under Federal law? Nor will we ban the manufacture of new guns that are currently legal? I doubt that she would expand to say that.

III. Second Amendment - yes, we won't abolish it (some have suggested a Constitutional Amendment). However, the interpretation is the game. Chelsea, Clinton herself, Ginsburg have all suggested that Heller will be undone. Will she say that she accepts Heller and McD. as finished and final constitutional law?

The NRA should ask her that directly after playing her speech line or commentators should. Guess what the answers would be? Anybody? Scott Baio?

Indawind · July 30, 2016, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Notice if their lips move when they say that.

Yep, sums it up. If she is speaking she is lying pretty much on any issue.

I read a "fact checking" of her acceptance speech and the misquotes and spins to take something hard into the "OMG, he said THAT!" was astounding.

natman · July 30, 2016, 07:04 PM

"Common sense" is window dressing for whatever scheme they've dreamed up, no matter how senseless or draconian, just like "loophole" is how they describe any feature of existing law they don't like, no matter how essential it might be for the proper functioning of the law.

"Common sense" so far has included suspending constitutional rights without due process, interpreting the "Instant" in NICS to mean as long a delay as they want, and the latest - declaring drilling a scope mount hole as a threat to national security.

SSA · July 30, 2016, 08:05 PM

So, this is about the candidate who has been against assault weapons.
But not about the other candidate who has been against assault weapons.

Old Bill Dibble · July 30, 2016, 09:10 PM

Quote:

SSA Meant to write:

So, this is about the candidate who is against all guns.
But not about the other candidate who is against assault weapons.

Yes, that is correct.

Shadow72 · July 30, 2016, 09:10 PM

Grandpa called it "Speaking out both sides of their mouth"

DaleA · July 31, 2016, 12:40 AM

Quote:

and telling us everything will be fine if we learn to walk in each other's shoes.

I think that is very good advice. Before you voice your disagreement with someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then if you still disagree with them, well, they're a mile away, and you've got their shoes.

As to the 'nobody's going to take your guns away' well here's a columnist that will and let's NEVER forget Feinstein's 'turn 'em all in'

New Republic Columnist says 'Ban 'Em All'
https://newrepublic.com/article/1254...-guns-yes-them

Senator Diane Feinstein 'I would have taken them all'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

ronl · July 31, 2016, 02:05 AM

I am afraid that if Clinton is elected, our guns rights will be severely restricted. There will be no more AR-15's, AK's, etc. in private hands, no grandfather clause. Ammo restrictions will make obtaining ammunition more difficult. We have only to look to the poster child of gun control, Australia, to view our future. If it does happen, and it could happen much more quickly than we realize, then every other right listed in the Constitution becomes worthless. It will indeed be a sad day.

Bartholomew Roberts · July 31, 2016, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSA

So, this is about the candidate who has been against assault weapons.

But not about the other candidate who has been against assault weapons.

No, this is about the candidate who IS against "assault weapons" (aka all semi-auto actions) right now. Current tense. Specifically it is about the way she is walking around town saying she is going to ban an entire class of firearms that has existed for over a century while simultaneously saying she isn't going to take anyone's guns away. Sometimes even saying the two contradictory statements in the same speech.

It is about a candidate who wants to be able to put people on a secret list with no due process or court oversight and people on that list cannot buy firearms.

It is about a candidate who thinks it is unconscionable that you cannot sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy when their products are used in a crime.

It is about a candidate who believes that the central holding of Heller, that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in YOUR OWN HOME is wrong and should be overturned.

ammo.crafter · July 31, 2016, 09:51 AM

Look at her history; from her termination for her methods at Watergate to her suspect tales of greatness.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth-
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought"
JFK

Carne Frio · July 31, 2016, 10:03 AM

"Common sense" asks who would believe anything she says?

jtmckinney · July 31, 2016, 12:46 PM

Another question that maybe should be ask is; Is the "Gun Control" being suggested good for "Organized Crime"?

Without items being illegal there is no need for "Black Markets" and organized crime to operate them. Just Saying

focodude · July 31, 2016, 02:45 PM

A friend of mine posted on his Facebook that "liberals don't want to take guns away". In a separate conversation he said "no one needs an AR15 or a 30 round magazine. They should be illegal." He thinks this is "common sense". To him there is no contradiction in these statements.

Evidently, reasonable people don't "need" to own semi-automatic rifles or pistols or magazines with capacities > than 10 rounds. So the government needs to ban and confiscate them. We should be happy if the government lets us keep bolt action rifles as long as they are used for hunting and don't look too scary. No one needs a handgun - all they're good for is killing people.

Hillary has said the Australian gun confiscation (aka buyback) is "worth considering" for the US. When Hillary says she doesn't want to take our guns does anyone believe her?

I'm reminded of criminals who knock at your door and will say anything to get in the door so they can rob, assault, and rape.

July 29, 2016, 02:15 PM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Candidate Who Campaigned For New AWB Says She Isn't Going to Take Your Guns http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...away-your-guns I keep noticing this weird disconnect in talking with anti-gun people myself. They'll talk all about how "nobody is going to take your guns" in the same breath they advocate banning semi-automatics. If you wait long enough, they'll usually add a Feinstein-qualification of "If it were up to me..." as well. Then they look at you like you're an ignorant rube because you believe someone wants to take your guns. In any case, after campaigning for MONTHS on banning semi-autos, Hillary claims she doesn't want to take your guns. To be fair, as often as she has gotten away with directly contradicting an earlier statement she freely made, why not give it a try?

July 30, 2016, 12:46 AM	#4
Koda94 Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2012 Location: Cascadia Posts: 1,294	isn’t there an old saying, the more outrageous the lie the more believable it is? I saw a post on Facebook from an anti gun friend sharing a "fact checking" website article debunking Trumps claim that Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Bottom line they rated that claim false. Why, because Hillary hasn’t directly said so. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...linton-wants-/ __________________ lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

July 30, 2016, 10:00 AM	#8
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	While it isn't an explicit call to ban guns, as mentioned in that politifact page she did state in a recording* that the Supreme Court is wrong about the 2nd amendment. That means: no individual right. She can't be much clearer than that. No individual right means the government can ban your guns as long as it has a rational basis, which amounts to no basis at all. It might not ban guns if it doesn't feel like it, but it can. It's left as an exercise to the reader what the 2nd amendment means if it doesn't guarantee an individual right. Since Hillary has stated repeatedly she doesn't want to do away with the 2nd amendment, I wonder in what sense she doesn't want to do away with it? She can't be any more excited about the prospect of State-controlled militias taking up arms against an out-of-control federal government than she is about individuals owning arms. Of course that's not confusion on her part, but merely another lie. Of course she doesn't care about the 2nd amendment and knows full well her interpretation makes it meaningless. * Short audio of Hillary, on fighting the NRA and on the SCOTUS being wrong about guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

July 30, 2016, 11:53 AM	#9
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,811	"Nobody is trying to take your guns" ranks right up there with "The check is in the mail", "the dog ate my homework", and "I'll still respect you in the morning".... Although, taken literally, "nobody", meaning no one single person, is trying to take our guns. No ONE person is, it's a group effort by a lot of different people! The old joke about how to tell if a politician is lying is still true today... (their lips move...) __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

July 30, 2016, 12:15 PM	#10
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	I believe the word Clintonian was coined to describe the ability to lie without actually lying. Remember the debate about the meaning of the word “is”? While the Clintons are not the only politicians to engage in doublespeak they are certainly experts at it. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

July 29, 2016, 02:46 PM	#3
Old Bill Dibble Senior Member Join Date: July 25, 2016 Posts: 802	All I can say is she is right. She isn't going to take away my guns.

July 30, 2016, 07:36 AM	#6
mdemetz Member Join Date: September 23, 2009 Posts: 73	Notice if their lips move when they say that.

July 30, 2016, 07:04 PM	#15
natman Senior Member Join Date: June 24, 2008 Posts: 2,605	"Common sense" is window dressing for whatever scheme they've dreamed up, no matter how senseless or draconian, just like "loophole" is how they describe any feature of existing law they don't like, no matter how essential it might be for the proper functioning of the law. "Common sense" so far has included suspending constitutional rights without due process, interpreting the "Instant" in NICS to mean as long a delay as they want, and the latest - declaring drilling a scope mount hole as a threat to national security.

July 30, 2016, 08:05 PM	#16
SSA Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Posts: 641	So, this is about the candidate who has been against assault weapons. But not about the other candidate who has been against assault weapons.

July 30, 2016, 09:10 PM	#18
Shadow72 Member Join Date: October 27, 2015 Location: Tejas Republic Posts: 70	Grandpa called it "Speaking out both sides of their mouth"

July 31, 2016, 02:05 AM	#20
ronl Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 2007 Posts: 1,100	I am afraid that if Clinton is elected, our guns rights will be severely restricted. There will be no more AR-15's, AK's, etc. in private hands, no grandfather clause. Ammo restrictions will make obtaining ammunition more difficult. We have only to look to the poster child of gun control, Australia, to view our future. If it does happen, and it could happen much more quickly than we realize, then every other right listed in the Constitution becomes worthless. It will indeed be a sad day.

July 31, 2016, 09:51 AM	#22
ammo.crafter Senior Member Join Date: June 25, 2006 Location: The Keystone State Posts: 1,970	Trust Look at her history; from her termination for her methods at Watergate to her suspect tales of greatness. "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought" JFK __________________ "Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". --Thomas Jefferson

July 31, 2016, 10:03 AM	#23
Carne Frio Senior Member Join Date: August 28, 2008 Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska Posts: 829	"Common sense" asks who would believe anything she says?

July 31, 2016, 12:46 PM	#24
jtmckinney Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 490	Another question that maybe should be ask is; Is the "Gun Control" being suggested good for "Organized Crime"? Without items being illegal there is no need for "Black Markets" and organized crime to operate them. Just Saying __________________ “Government does few things well but it does them at great expense” Cal Thomas “When Government Can’t Be Trusted” 6/11/2013 When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedoms because that is according to my principles. Frank Herbert "Children of Dune"

July 31, 2016, 02:45 PM	#25
focodude Member Join Date: January 11, 2013 Posts: 71	A friend of mine posted on his Facebook that "liberals don't want to take guns away". In a separate conversation he said "no one needs an AR15 or a 30 round magazine. They should be illegal." He thinks this is "common sense". To him there is no contradiction in these statements. Evidently, reasonable people don't "need" to own semi-automatic rifles or pistols or magazines with capacities > than 10 rounds. So the government needs to ban and confiscate them. We should be happy if the government lets us keep bolt action rifles as long as they are used for hunting and don't look too scary. No one needs a handgun - all they're good for is killing people. Hillary has said the Australian gun confiscation (aka buyback) is "worth considering" for the US. When Hillary says she doesn't want to take our guns does anyone believe her? I'm reminded of criminals who knock at your door and will say anything to get in the door so they can rob, assault, and rape.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search