Democratic Debate - Hillary & Obama on Guns

J

JWT

New member
Watching the Democratic debate, in progress on ABC, it just became painfully apparent that neither Hillary or Obama have any respect for the 2nd ammendment. They both skirted the issue but neither would state that they were not for gun control. They seem to think that localities should have the right to pass gun legislation at they see fit to 'protect' themselves.

Anyone watching it cannot have any doubt that Hillary and Obama are anti gun.
 
Not only that, they believe government should control your life. That is basically incompatible with any view of individual freedom including 2A.
 
I too watched as they both tried their hardest to convince america that they are not every bit as much for complete gun registry and abolishment of freedom as Adolf Hitler was.

If either of them had just came out and said "I'm going to ban all guns" I don't think I'd have been that suprised.
 
So Hillary is all for the constitutional right, but local governments can have "restrictions" to keep their citizens safe. So every local government puts a gun ban into effect and that's ok? BS.

And what did she say about having to get rid of machine guns when asked about the DC gun ban and those citizen's right to arm themselves? What do machine guns have to do with that?

It sickens me.
 
And what did she say about having to get rid of machine guns when asked about the DC gun ban and those citizen's right to arm themselves? What do machine guns have to do with that?
Click to expand...

That's just it... to people like hillary and obama EVERY gun is a machine gun that fires hollow point, explosive tip, armor peircing, shot gun style ammunition that is deadly accurate from miles away.

Sorry, I'm simply outraged that yet again "ganstas" from the east side of obama's beloved Chicago are put in the same group as people that have CCW permits and legally buy guns to use them responsibly.

They truly don't get it.
 
They seem to think that localities should have the right to pass gun legislation at they see fit to 'protect' themselves.
Click to expand...

I guess that's marginally better than wanting to regulate them at the federal level. Though, of course, neither would be opposed to that either (and Obama at least would almost definitely actively support it).

So Hillary is all for the constitutional right, but local governments can have "restrictions" to keep their citizens safe. So every local government puts a gun ban into effect and that's ok? BS.
Click to expand...

You know what I find kind of interesting? The number of people (not counting you among them), at least philosophically, seem to think that the fourteenth amendment (and the incorporation of rights under it) was a huge encroachment on states' rights...many who have even argued that abolishing slavery was an encroachment on states' rights...yet think that the second amendment is absolute, and inviolable at either the state or local level.

It just kind of struck me now. Odd, that. I'm not seeing how the position is consistent.
 
I was surprised that they asked Obama directly and pointedly about his stand while he was an Illinois state senator that handguns should be banned from civilian possession.

He denied this, so they pointed out he had filled out a questionaire where he stated this and signed at the bottom. He hemmed and Hawed, and said only the appropriate folks should have handguns, common sense laws regulating them are needed.

Hillary wants the philadelphis NYC approach we are seeing now, a shotgun blast of laws, that will have to be dealt with one at a time in court, unless the USC saves us.
 
"They both skirted the issue but neither would state that they were not for gun control."


Clinton did end up saying she would definately bring back the "assault weapons ban" :eek:......thats pretty much anti-gun to me.
 
Obama lied about filling out that questionaire with his handgun comments. Even a child could see that. Lies.
 
Last edited:
Both of the Evil Ones know exactly what they are doing. Once our 2nd Amendment rights are gone, it will be easier to take the rest of our freedoms and create their national socialist utopia where no one needs to think, just work and pay taxes.
 
Even more surprising is the number of folks here voting for one of those two.




Those folks had better pull their heads out of their----------you know what, or Just give up your guns to Comrad Klinton, Mohammad Obama .
 
Is there a transcript out there?

They were desperately trying to keep the PA 'fudd' type vote - which they may think is the only gun owner type of worth. They were dodging the issue on the legitimacy of the DC ban like Bill discussing Monica. Rather lame.

Hillary's comments on the AWB were telling. Not because so much of her theoretical anti-RKBA position (which is bad) but she is supposed to be so smart and she says that she doesn't know the data and has the criminological and well research effects of the AWB all wrong.

Of course, honesty compells me to point out that the GWB and his AG Alberto were quite the fans of the AWB.
 
blackhawk45 said:
Mohammad Obama
Click to expand...

It never ends, does it?

Watching the Democratic debate, in progress on ABC,]Watching the Democratic debate, in progress on ABC,
Click to expand...

Obama does this thing (okay, all politicians do it, but Obama more so) where he'll skirt around a question and then bring up a laundry list of talking points - irrelevant conclusions and red herrings, etc. - such as "restoring America's standing," "bring jobs to middle America," "hope," "change," "si se puede," and so on.

It was especially obvious when he darted the "bitter" comment, clinging to guns...

So I switched back to the channel I was watching previously, only to see my team lose to the White Sox. However, there was a really crazy, dirty, Yankees-Bosux game that went on forever on ESPN.

I'm making a point here - How many Americans - those intent on knowing their politics and those otherwise - actually cared? That debate was super boring and so thick with the sleaze. Those who are already locked into their poison of choice probably weren't gonna switch their support based on that debate. Those who were still undecided probably cared more about A-Rod beating Ted Williams in home runs.

And if you don't like baseball, you're not an American..

One thing I definitely did decide on during the excruciating half-hour I mustered for the debate - all of Hillary's faults are due to her saying what she thinks the public wants to hear. She moved to the center (voted for Iraq) when she was running for Senate, she's moving to the left during these primaries, and I'll suspect she'll move back to the center in the off-chance she becomes President. Inevitably, she does what will get her re-elected.... which is not terribly bad. Kinda lame, but not apocalyptic.

On the other hand, all of Obama's faults are due to him actually believing what he says.

Based on this fundamental difference, I'd rather have Hillary in power than Obama. Somewhere out there, McCain is wondering why the media forgot about him.

And if you don't wear an American Flag pin on your lapel, you're not an American.
 
Based on this fundamental difference, I'd rather have Hillary in power than Obama. Somewhere out there, McCain is wondering why the media forgot about him.
Click to expand...

I think I'm with you on that one. Hillary actually pays attention to what the people think, even if it is only to pay lip service. Obama is a left wing version of our current president- he'll do what he sees fit, no matter how it clashes with the Constitution or common sense, because he sees himself as wise and right and never once stops to consider if he might be wrong. Not that Hillary doesn't do that, but Obama believes in himself and his path with a zeal that worries me. While Hillary seems to be in it more for the power's sake, that means she'll be afraid to do something that will make her lose that power. Obama is just trusting that us poor, foolish, bitter folks will be ushered into a new utopia under his leadership that we'll have no choice but to return him to office.

It may be a minor distinction, but it will be what makes all the difference. I still wonder why all the animosity between the pro-Hillary and pro-Obama camps, since they both believe basically the same things and will do mostly the same things. It's all about image and the zeal with which they'll work. Hillary seems to be more realistic, but she is also more establishment as a result. Obama has managed to make his outsider image work, but he seems to have as much grasp of reality as a goldfish does of particle physics.

As for McCain, nobody is paying much attention because there isn't anything going on. He's only trying to solidify his base at the moment, and all the action is on the Dem side. Once the conventions are on us, he'll pick up, because he'll be picking a running mate and nailing down a specific platform while sparring with the final Dem nominee.
 
Ya' know, liberals are also all jazzed up about the "green issue."

For many years, the farmers in South America have been bulldozing and burning off jungle areas for farmland.

Much of it is for cash crops--like our increasing desire for coffee.

I have often wondered if the lefty candidates used their same anti-gun agenda on an "anti Starbucks" position to save yuppies from themselves.

Would the same voters reward the candidates' beverage involvement as a benefit of the nanny state?
 
They were desperately trying to keep the PA 'fudd' type vote - which they may think is the only gun owner type of worth.
Click to expand...

Well, to them those are probably the only ones that matter. How many actual firearms enthusiasts, true second amendment supporters, do you know that would vote Democratic in the first place? It's a pretty small minority. It's been my experience that a vast majority of gun activists are also generally socially conservative. Unless Obama or Clinton came out as being more pro-gun than McCain (or unless a Democratic candidate in general came out as more pro-gun then the Republican) they're not getting those votes. Ever.

At that point all they can really hope to do is shoot for the hunter/sportsmen types, and try to pick up the more socially liberal among them.

I just wish the Democratic Party would realize just how much this is costing them elsewhere, though. Run an actual pro-gun candidate, and you'd almost instantly put half a dozen more states in play. And, just like the above, it's not like most anti-gun activists are social conservatives...they're not going to up and vote Republican just because the Democrat isn't anti-gun enough.
 
Applesanity,
I agree with your assessment of Hillary and Obama, and have said the same thing to many friends. I don't like Hillary, but I at least feel that, at the end of the day, she'll follow the will of the American people (or at least an opinion poll). While this is not always right, I feel it would be better than the Obama approach, which is pure arrogance. He feels that he is right, no matter what, and I don't feel that he would answer to ANYONE. THIS is the difference between bad leadership (Hillary) and a borderline dictator (Obama).

I honestly feel that a good leader should answer to the Constitution, the People, and themselves (in that order). Obama answers to himself, first, the people (of Europe, unfortunately), THEN the Constitution!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top