Daily Beast: Hillary Really Is Coming For Your Guns

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
“We need to have a registry that really works, with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.” - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken...-really-coming-your-guns#sthash.BKi1QZjO.dpuf
(Link is not to original Daily Beast story if you are concerned about giving ad views to anti-gun stories)

This article is a good synopsis of Hillary Clinton's policy views and string preference for gun control, including not just bans but elimination of transfers and eventual confiscation of semi-automatic weapons. While I am sure this is not news to many of us who remember her husband's Administration, I thought it a worthwhile reminder for newer gun owners who may not be aware or even old timers who didn't realize that Hillary wants to go far beyond the 1990s gun control signed by Bill Clinton.
 
At this point, she doesn't have to equivocate. There's no point. The NRA is going to come out hard against her no matter what she does, so she might as well pound gun control as an issue.

The question is: will she get anything done? She'll have constant opposition from the legislative branch, so that seems unlikely.

Members: we're leery of election threads for good reason. They usually lead to partisan bickering. Before posting here, read the rules for this subforum.
 
I'm not quite sure what this post actually accomplishes? It's always been apparent what the Clintons' (or Biden if he throws his hat in) are a about and there's really nothing we can do but vote and hope for the best. Failing that, we then have to hope the legislative branch can keep her from running amok.

Personally I'd prefer if we kept these discussions out of here unless there is a law being pushed. Right now we still have over a year before there's even a vote on who'll be the next president. This does nothing but stir the hornets nest.
 
NJgunowner said:
Personally I'd prefer if we kept these discussions out of here unless there is a law being pushed.
Click to expand...

The problem with that approach is we miss the opportunity to identify and elect politicians who are pro-Second before those laws can be proposed. On the Democratic side, only James Webb has any kind of positive pro-2A record; and on the Republucan side, Pataki is an unequivocal anti-gun candidate with several other candidates having made statements supporting additional gun control.

Sharing that information early, so we can choose good candidates in the Primaries increases the odds we have good candidates in the General. It would be great to have a choice between two good pro-RKBA candidates in the General for a change.

As much as I like to assume everyone knows this about Hillary, you run into people who don't. Obama was a former Board of Director member of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation and once voted to punish an otherwise law-abiding home owner who used a gun in self-defense but did not have an Illinois FOID. He had also filled out a questionairre indicating support for a handgun ban. It seemed blatantly obvious to me he was going to go after guns; yet he managed to convince millions of Americans that this was not the case.

So I think we do ourselves a disservice by ignoring opportunities to share facts about past votes and policy preferences just because people often have strong opinions on politics.
 
As much as I like to assume everyone knows this about Hillary, you run into people who don't.
Click to expand...
I don't know that we have to worry about that this time around. She's been openly vocal about the issue. In fact, she and Sanders seem to be having a back-and-forth over who love gun control more.

That leaves Martin O'Malley. He brags about his "F" rating from the NRA and inflicted heinous gun control laws on the citizens of Maryland through in the wake of Sandy Hook.

As far as the Republican side, it's too early to tell who might get the nomination. Trump went on record in 2000 supporting waiting periods and assault-weapon bans. As for the, what, 19 others, we'll have to wait for tangible statements.
 
CLINTON said:
....people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech....
Click to expand...
Never let the facts stand in the way of good fear-mongering incitement to riot.
Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter, had never been committed to a mental institution.

Now when looking at Cho's history we might ask ourselves just why he hadn't been
involuntarily committed, but that's a whole`nuther problem altogether.

As usual, however, Clinton and others like her will never be called to task to explain
exactly how any of her "common-sense" proposals would have had any effect on any of
the highly-publicized recent shootings.

.....unless of course, mere accusation is sufficient to strip someone of all legal protections.
 
This article is a good synopsis of Hillary Clinton's policy views and string preference for gun control, including not just bans but elimination of transfers and eventual confiscation of semi-automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

I read the article. I did not see anything about elimination of transfers or confiscation of semi-autos. Look, I don't like Hillary. I don't like her stand on gun control. I do believe that she would go as far as the legislature would allow her to in enacting new draconian gun laws. But, the article didn't quote her saying any of those things.

Most people who own guns or are for owning guns are not going to vote for Hillary. Even if Hillary came out and declared openly "Elect me and I will eliminate all firearms in America...", that is not going to significantly affect her numbers one way or another. She is drawing most of her support from women, environmentalists, unions and various minority special interests. Other than perhaps unions and union labor, none of these other groups care one way or another about gun rights.

As gun owners, I don't think there is much we can do to "educate the public" about Hillary's stance on gun control that is going to put a dent in her numbers. She will need to be scrutinized on non-gun related topics to peel away support from her. Not that I'm advocating doing that on this board.
 
Last edited:
Most people who own guns or are for owning guns are not going to vote for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? I tried to warn gun owners about Bill Clinton. The response was, "nah, he's from Arkansas. They like guns." Even after the Brady Act and AWB, he comfortably won reelection.

Many, many gun owners voted for President Obama because they liked him on other issues. I'm hearing quite a few in the younger crowd who are bent on voting for Sanders for the same reason.

We don't vote as a unified, coherent bloc. It's dangerous to assume so.
 
Hillary Clinton has always made anti-gun noise: That's one of the things she does. Yes, her anti-gun campaign rhetoric is extreme.

Barring a change of majority in both houses of congress her gun control options as president would be very limited. She would continue to pander to the anti-gunners and demand the US congress pass serious gun control, therefore scaring pro-gunners into another round of panic buying.

Flashback: While the "sheep dogs" were obsessing about "Obama taking our guns" several states passed serious gun control.
 
I'm not quite sure what this post actually accomplishes? It's always been apparent what the Clintons' (or Biden if he throws his hat in) are a about and there's really nothing we can do but vote and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be snarky, but how'd that work out for you in New Jersey? "Hoping for the best" is how we got un-Constitutional laws state by state that the SCOTUS, and other Fed courts don't have the guts to shoot down.

So, I think we should try to do something about it by getting the truth out there AND vote, and make sure our rights not only stay, but become less infringed, like pushing to have the GCA 1968 repealed.
 
You're making the assumption that people ACTUALLY GIVE A DAMN about gun laws. Most families are a lot more interested in jobs and wage equality than gun rights. In the North east you can shout from the rooftops as loud and long as you want and it won't accomplish a damn thing. They already know where they stand on guns and YOU aren't going to change it. They simply don't care about them and nothing you say or do is going to make a difference. They've been indoctrinated their whole lives right through college, you don't stand a chance against a lifetime of brainwashing.

Frankly I'm getting tired of the "if we just got the word out" mentality. It's not going to work here. Most of the gun rights groups in NJ know it, it's why they are trying the courts when they can, as the politicians and PEOPLE of NJ aren't EVER going to change the laws except to make them more strict. Our only recourse is the courts, and they haven't been to helpful since most of the ones in our district are old Clinton appointees. (or so it seems when guns are involved)

Reality hurts, but you get used to it or you move out of the area to a state that isn't so screwed up.
 
Working to inform gun owners and get them active doesn't guarantee a win. Quitting on the other hand, does guarantee a loss. If you are going to lose either way, might as well go down fighting.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you kept this on Second Amendment issues and didn't intentionally bring up off-topic political topics likely to get the thread locked.
 
Flashback: While the "sheep dogs" were obsessing about "Obama taking our guns" several states passed serious gun control.
Click to expand...
It's really not that simple. Newtown put gun control back on the table, and with an urgency we hadn't seen in nearly 20 years.

The big cash-money, politician-buying NRA? They don't have as much to spend on lobbying as people think, and most of that was spent for the year. Newton happened in December, and right after a Presidential election. It was the worst timing possible.

On top of that, there were several situations in which they didn't have time to act anyway. Cuomo made sure the legislature ramrodded the SAFE Act through in two nights, and he signed it the moment it hit his desk. Was it illegal to bypass the review period? Probably, but the burden is on us to bring a court case. He knew that.

Same general story in Maryland, Colorado, and Connecticut. Politicians knew they had a narrow window to act on public outrage. They exploited it. We couldn't react quickly enough. It's hard to shift gears from fighting a massive federal effort to putting out brushfires in half a dozen states.

Is there hope for the northeast? I can't say. If things are to change, it looks like it'll have to happen through the courts. The legislatures aren't in our favor.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Working to inform gun owners and get them active doesn't guarantee a win. Quitting on the other hand, does guarantee a loss. If you are going to lose either way, might as well go down fighting.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with an individual articulating a position for gun rights. I wouldn't get my hopes up on it doing much good though as the general government, media and education establishments are pretty much anti-gun.
 
Also, I'd appreciate it if you kept this on Second Amendment issues and didn't intentionally bring up off-topic political topics likely to get the thread locked.
Click to expand...

Everything I posted has to do with gun rights where the northeast is concerned. You know, the 2nd amendment. This is our political reality, if you can't handle that then don't read it.
 
Last edited:
You're making the assumption that people ACTUALLY GIVE A DAMN about gun laws. Most families are a lot more interested in jobs and wage equality than gun rights. In the North east you can shout from the rooftops as loud and long as you want and it won't accomplish a damn thing. They already know where they stand on guns and YOU aren't going to change it. They simply don't care about them and nothing you say or do is going to make a difference. They've been indoctrinated their whole lives right through college, you don't stand a chance against a lifetime of brainwashing.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^

The vast majority of voters in states like NJ, NY, MA and CT give one hoot in hades about gun rights. They are are more concerned with having decent jobs, etc. That is not going to change anytime soon.

i often see snarky remarks like "move to a pro-gun state" on these boards. Yep, come on down to states like OK where you can legally own a semi-auto rifle with 100 round magazine and all the other bells and whistles.

Warning: Be prepared to work two or three low paying jobs to support the same lifestyle you had in the NE US. i've had a residence here since 1985. During that time i've worked over seven years overseas and in 21 different states. With the exception of TX the economies of the southern states stink.
 
i often see snarky remarks like "move to a pro-gun state" on these boards.
Click to expand...
More to the point, if all the progun people move out of those states, who's left behind to fight their laws?

Our rights should not be dependent on the zip code in which we reside. I'm pretty sure we fought a war about that.
 
I know people who would vote for Hillary, because she is a woman. I know people who voted for Obama, because he is black.

No other reason mattered to them.

Of course Hillary is going to demand more gun control, the leopard doesn't change its spots, and the wolf in sheep's clothing is still the wolf.

WE are in campaign mode here, people. Do not forget that. It's NOT about what is, or isn't right, or even what can, and cannot be done. It's about ALL of them spouting what ever crap they think will get them the biggest lead in a POPULARITY contest.

A contest where the only poll that matters is still over a year away. Enjoy the "pregame show", the game doesn't start for a while yet....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top