In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Hillary says gun owners cannot be trusted!

serfserf Member Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭✭
edited June 2014 in Politics
She is sure going to get elected and come after your guns!

Just watch her Old Biden is too dumb to get elected!

serf

http://www.teaparty.org/hillary-clinton-gun-owners-cant-trusted-41343/

At the rate we're going, we're going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don't like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gun chewer or cell phone user by shooting

Comments

  • gary wraygary wray Member Posts: 4,663
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by serf


    She is sure going to get elected and come after your guns!

    Just watch her Old Biden is too dumb to get elected!

    serf

    http://www.teaparty.org/hillary-clinton-gun-owners-cant-trusted-41343/

    At the rate we're going, we're going to have so many people with guns everywhere, fully licensed, fully validated, in settings where [one] could be in a movie theater, and they don't like someone chewing gum loudly or talking on their cell phone and decide they have the perfect right to defend themselves against the gun chewer or cell phone user by shooting


    If we stick together she will have no hope to be elected. I would hope that all gunowners would link arms against her....if we did that, she has NO chance. If we keep arguing among ourselves, smacking down folks who have this and that problem, then she will be elected. Her election is actually in OUR hands if we just "all get along."
  • e3mrke3mrk Member Posts: 1,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If They vote for Her I would have to agree.
  • wifetrainedwifetrained Member Posts: 1,144 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And of course she can be trusted???!!!??? NOT!!
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That was May 6, "What difference at this point does it make?"[:p]
  • DaveJDaveJ Member Posts: 395 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Put this sticker on your front bumper...... " RUN HILLARY RUN "[}:)]
  • serfserf Member Posts: 9,225 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hillary is on to something,the weak spot of giving deadly rights to citizens! Just look at the news about the mass murders in California!

    Watch this to snowball soon!

    serf
  • thunderboltthunderbolt Member Posts: 6,019 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Anyone remember the old Rush Limbaugh bit on Hillary's memory? "Its Jello!"
  • MadjackMadjack Member Posts: 71 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I recently heard a rumor that she had cancer. We can only hope?
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,206 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    FWIW, Hillary with a GOP House and Senate will be of less danger to our 2nd Amendment Privileges than would a gun-grabbing pseudo-con like Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, or the like.

    Those of you who have forgotten the restrictions placed upon us by Reagan and Bush 1. We should probably, in this regard, count ourselves as lucky that Romney was not in the White House in January of 2013 following Sandy Hook. He would have enabled the milquetoast GOP members of the Senate and the House to go along with something 'reasonable' to prove how beneficent and caring the GOP actually is.

    It is incredibly dangerous to take one's eye off of the actual problem and focus upon a single party as the threat. The fact is that mainstream establishment politicians of all stripes have fallen into the trap of Reasonable Controls upon the individual for the betterment of society.

    Hillary is a part of the problem to be sure, but she is in no way the personification of the problem. The true problem lies in emotionality of our culture and the disgusting democratic mob rule that takes place in D.C. by both Democrats and Republicans.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by us55840


    In my opinion, those in politics cannot be trusted.





    Beat me to the punch. When I first read the Wicked Witch of the Left's statement it struck me how ironic it was for someone like her to have said that.
  • gary wraygary wray Member Posts: 4,663
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    FWIW, Hillary with a GOP House and Senate will be of less danger to our 2nd Amendment Privileges than would a gun-grabbing pseudo-con like Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, or the like.

    Those of you who have forgotten the restrictions placed upon us by Reagan and Bush 1. We should probably, in this regard, count ourselves as lucky that Romney was not in the White House in January of 2013 following Sandy Hook. He would have enabled the milquetoast GOP members of the Senate and the House to go along with something 'reasonable' to prove how beneficent and caring the GOP actually is.

    It is incredibly dangerous to take one's eye off of the actual problem and focus upon a single party as the threat. The fact is that mainstream establishment politicians of all stripes have fallen into the trap of Reasonable Controls upon the individual for the betterment of society.

    Hillary is a part of the problem to be sure, but she is in no way the personification of the problem. The true problem lies in emotionality of our culture and the disgusting democratic mob rule that takes place in D.C. by both Democrats and Republicans.


    Don, that you would type this kind of junk is beyond me! You would work against those who would work against Hillary says a bit more about you that those of us who would work HARD to keep her out of the White House. It is this kind of negative thinking that the DEM's love to hear and see....us eating our own because they don't fit our litmus test of purity....and allow idiots like BO, Hillary and other LIB DEM's to laugh their way into power. Come on, get with it...keep you eye on the prize....keeping LIB DEM's out of power for the next eight years....you got to be tired of losing!!!!
  • gary wraygary wray Member Posts: 4,663
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by DaveJ
    Put this sticker on your front bumper...... " RUN HILLARY RUN "[}:)]


    Only if conservatives lock arms together, quit attacking each other, and attack the real enemy................HER!
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,206 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gary wray
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    FWIW, Hillary with a GOP House and Senate will be of less danger to our 2nd Amendment Privileges than would a gun-grabbing pseudo-con like Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, or the like.

    Those of you who have forgotten the restrictions placed upon us by Reagan and Bush 1. We should probably, in this regard, count ourselves as lucky that Romney was not in the White House in January of 2013 following Sandy Hook. He would have enabled the milquetoast GOP members of the Senate and the House to go along with something 'reasonable' to prove how beneficent and caring the GOP actually is.

    It is incredibly dangerous to take one's eye off of the actual problem and focus upon a single party as the threat. The fact is that mainstream establishment politicians of all stripes have fallen into the trap of Reasonable Controls upon the individual for the betterment of society.

    Hillary is a part of the problem to be sure, but she is in no way the personification of the problem. The true problem lies in emotionality of our culture and the disgusting democratic mob rule that takes place in D.C. by both Democrats and Republicans.


    Don, that you would type this kind of junk is beyond me! You would work against those who would work against Hillary says a bit more about you that those of us who would work HARD to keep her out of the White House. It is this kind of negative thinking that the DEM's love to hear and see....us eating our own because they don't fit our litmus test of purity....and allow idiots like BO, Hillary and other LIB DEM's to laugh their way into power. Come on, get with it...keep you eye on the prize....keeping LIB DEM's out of power for the next eight years....you got to be tired of losing!!!!


    What you fail to understand, Gary, is that there has been as much damage to America caused by these phony conservatives with consolidated power as by the phony liberals.

    I will support candidates that challange the big government status quo, and no-one else.

    If that results in a powerless Clinton co-existing with a gutless GOP Congress, as compared to gutless GOP hack with the same Congress, we are probably better off as a country.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060
    edited November -1
    Don, you're wasting your breath (fingers?). The guy is firmly locked into his Democrat vs Republican, us vs them, world.
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by gary wray
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    FWIW, Hillary with a GOP House and Senate will be of less danger to our 2nd Amendment Privileges than would a gun-grabbing pseudo-con like Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, or the like.

    Those of you who have forgotten the restrictions placed upon us by Reagan and Bush 1. We should probably, in this regard, count ourselves as lucky that Romney was not in the White House in January of 2013 following Sandy Hook. He would have enabled the milquetoast GOP members of the Senate and the House to go along with something 'reasonable' to prove how beneficent and caring the GOP actually is.

    It is incredibly dangerous to take one's eye off of the actual problem and focus upon a single party as the threat. The fact is that mainstream establishment politicians of all stripes have fallen into the trap of Reasonable Controls upon the individual for the betterment of society.

    Hillary is a part of the problem to be sure, but she is in no way the personification of the problem. The true problem lies in emotionality of our culture and the disgusting democratic mob rule that takes place in D.C. by both Democrats and Republicans.


    Don, that you would type this kind of junk is beyond me! You would work against those who would work against Hillary says a bit more about you that those of us who would work HARD to keep her out of the White House. It is this kind of negative thinking that the DEM's love to hear and see....us eating our own because they don't fit our litmus test of purity....and allow idiots like BO, Hillary and other LIB DEM's to laugh their way into power. Come on, get with it...keep you eye on the prize....keeping LIB DEM's out of power for the next eight years....you got to be tired of losing!!!!


    What you fail to understand, Gary, is that there has been as much damage to America caused by these phony conservatives with consolidated power as by the phony liberals.

    I will support candidates that challange the big government status quo, and no-one else.

    If that results in a powerless Clinton co-existing with a gutless GOP Congress, as compared to gutless GOP hack with the same Congress, we are probably better off as a country.


    Funny you would mention consolidated power. Over the last several days I have been compiling some data on congressional make up.

    By consolidated power I assume you referring to one party (GOP) controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. This has happened exactly twice in the last 70 years. The 108th and 109th congress with the 107th being split in the Senate 50/50. This was Bush 43.

    I don't know if I would say they had done as much damage as the Liberals.

    I also support Conservatives that will stand up to the establishment. I supported Ted Cruz in the Texas primary, and the support was not limited to just a vote in the primary. I don't feel the least bit disappointed.

    Personally I think voting against something is just as valid as voting for something.

    I don't like the term RHINO simply because is sets the Republican Party (establishment?) as a standard.

    But once the candidates are determined I will vote for a RHINO just to defeat a *.[:D]
  • wiz1997wiz1997 Member Posts: 1,051 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hilary is a diversionary tactic. They have no intentions of running her but are keeping her in the light while they "groom" someone for the position. This someone will take the whole lot of us by surprise.
    IMO of course.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,206 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by casper1947
    Funny you would mention consolidated power. Over the last several days I have been compiling some data on congressional make up.

    By consolidated power I assume you referring to one party (GOP) controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. This has happened exactly twice in the last 70 years. The 108th and 109th congress with the 107th being split in the Senate 50/50. This was Bush 43.

    I don't know if I would say they had done as much damage as the Liberals.

    I also support Conservatives that will stand up to the establishment. I supported Ted Cruz in the Texas primary, and the support was not limited to just a vote in the primary. I don't feel the least bit disappointed.

    Personally I think voting against something is just as valid as voting for something.

    I don't like the term RHINO simply because is sets the Republican Party (establishment?) as a standard.

    But once the candidates are determined I will vote for a RHINO just to defeat a *.[:D]



    The Iraq War damaged America much more than anything the left has done to us since FDR.

    The gross expansion of Government following the attacks of 11 September, 2001 continue to have lasting effects upon our freedoms, as do the Constitutional stretching involved in the Patriot Act and the fast and loose playing with the 4th that was requested and granted for the warrantless wiretapping that may or may not have been reviewed by the FISA court.

    The above is the GOP's America.

    Consolidation of power also occurs when a GOP President feels the need to work 'across the aisle'. This condition gave us the Reagan/O'Neil era of Government Expansion as well as the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act which effectively put select-fire weapons out of the hands of the average American and the Brady Bill which further consolidated the power of the Federal Government to reach into our daily lives.

    A Democrat Congress will go along with a Democrat President to further the power of Government.

    A GOP Congress will go along with a GOP President to further the power of Government.

    A GOP President will go along with a Democrat Congress to further the power of Government.

    It seems, however, that a GOP Congress will at least make efforts to stand in the way of a Democrat President when he tries to further the power of Government. It is an imperfect situation, but a damn site better than the other three.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    "The Iraq War damaged America much more than anything the left has done to us since FDR."

    Iraq more than Viet Nam, I don't know about that and I'll raise you "Great Society"

    "The gross expansion of Government following the attacks of 11 September, 2001 continue to have lasting effects upon our freedoms, as do the Constitutional stretching involved in the Patriot Act and the fast and loose playing with the 4th that was requested and granted for the warrantless wiretapping that may or may not have been reviewed by the FISA court."

    Absolutely. I naively accepted it because of the sunset clause. With as much Democrat opposition as there was I thought it would( at least the most offensive elements) be addressed. WRONG....In fact when the Democrats had the chance they renewed and expanded it.

    "The above is the GOP's America.

    Consolidation of power also occurs when a GOP President feels the need to work 'across the aisle'. This condition gave us the Reagan/O'Neil era of Government Expansion as well as the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act which effectively put select-fire weapons out of the hands of the average American and the Brady Bill which further consolidated the power of the Federal Government to reach into our daily lives."

    I don't know if I would classify "working across the aisle" quite like that. During all 8 years of Regan's administration the House was controlled by Democrats and the last 2 they controlled the Senate. In a situation like that you might have to compromise.

    I don't like the 1986 firearms act either, even as a compromise.

    Nor did I agree with amnesty today for border security tomorrow, or tax increases today for spending cuts tomorrow. Tomorrow never came.

    And the Brady Bill..........this just re-enforces my position that EVERY time you compromise a core position (in this case the 2nd) with a Liberal/Socialist they WIN. They will be back again and again and again, forever adding to it.

    "A Democrat Congress will go along with a Democrat President to further the power of Government.

    A GOP Congress will go along with a GOP President to further the power of Government.

    A GOP President will go along with a Democrat Congress to further the power of Government.

    It seems, however, that a GOP Congress will at least make efforts to stand in the way of a Democrat President when he tries to further the power of Government. It is an imperfect situation, but a damn site better than the other three."

    All the above forecast appear reasonable but I think the quality of people elected in November will have a major influence on the environment. The same holds true for Congress and the Presidency in 2016.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,206 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I will grant you the Great Society, but will leave the question open regarding the 2003 Iraq war vs. Viet Nam.

    Politically, Viet Nam was different in that we went in a the request of the existing government, albeit a government that was a creation of outside entities. We went in with the intent of maintaining that existing government.

    Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression against an existing government with the expressed goal of replacing that existing government. A statement that the U.S. now will publically and with the force of arms, remove a government we do not like.

    Viet Nam obviously resulted greater human cost for this country, but it did not, IMO, damage our credibility on the world stage nearly as much as did the pre-emptive war against Iraq.

    There are significant movements within the GOP that are working to oust the old boy's club mentality. The Democrats are a lost cause, I believe, but those of us who support these movements are changing the party for the better. It is sad that we are faced every four years with the mentality we see posted in this thread that gives up on principled Governance for the expediency of a largely meaningless win.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I will grant you the Great Society, but will leave the question open regarding the 2003 Iraq war vs. Viet Nam.

    Politically, Viet Nam was different in that we went in a the request of the existing government, albeit a government that was a creation of outside entities. We went in with the intent of maintaining that existing government.

    Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression against an existing government with the expressed goal of replacing that existing government. A statement that the U.S. now will publically and with the force of arms, remove a government we do not like.

    Viet Nam obviously resulted greater human cost for this country, but it did not, IMO, damage our credibility on the world stage nearly as much as did the pre-emptive war against Iraq.

    There are significant movements within the GOP that are working to oust the old boy's club mentality. The Democrats are a lost cause, I believe, but those of us who support these movements are changing the party for the better. It is sad that we are faced every four years with the mentality we see posted in this thread that gives up on principled Governance for the expediency of a largely meaningless win.

    True Viet Nam was different but the existing government was considered by many as a puppet government. There is also reasonable doubt that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ever actually happened and that was used as justification for escalating the war. Politically speaking it was a war started by the Democrats and lost by the Democrats in that they tried to run the war from capitol hill and with an eye on the media rather than just letting the military go and kick butt.

    I think you are correct about the Democrat party being a lost cause. It's sliding to the left began as a result of the Anti Viet Nam war movement. And I am afraid it hasn't bottomed out yet.
  • gary wraygary wray Member Posts: 4,663
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I will grant you the Great Society, but will leave the question open regarding the 2003 Iraq war vs. Viet Nam.

    Politically, Viet Nam was different in that we went in a the request of the existing government, albeit a government that was a creation of outside entities. We went in with the intent of maintaining that existing government.

    Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression against an existing government with the expressed goal of replacing that existing government. A statement that the U.S. now will publically and with the force of arms, remove a government we do not like.

    Viet Nam obviously resulted greater human cost for this country, but it did not, IMO, damage our credibility on the world stage nearly as much as did the pre-emptive war against Iraq.

    There are significant movements within the GOP that are working to oust the old boy's club mentality. The Democrats are a lost cause, I believe, but those of us who support these movements are changing the party for the better. It is sad that we are faced every four years with the mentality we see posted in this thread that gives up on principled Governance for the expediency of a largely meaningless win.


    Don....you forget that the Iraqi war was approved by Congress and implemented by the POTUS. Was it wrong? Worth the cost? Only history will tell but you have evidently already made up your mind which is your right. If we conservatives stick together the DEM playhouse of the last eight years can be checkmated beginning in Nov 2014 and get the Big Seat in 2016. I am voting for the anti-DEM and I have my hopes who it might be but whomever it is, that person has my vote as I have seen the other side, tired of folks laughing at our leadership and country, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend....even if I have to hold my nose when I vote. Lets join hands and get the real enemies of this country out of power.....hubris and all!
  • MadjackMadjack Member Posts: 71 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    All I know is I want to see candidates who have actually read "AND UNDERSTAND" the Constitution of the United States. I know of no democrats that seem to be able to read, much less be cognizant of what they just read. Look at owebama. He claims to have a big, fancy degree in Constitutional law. He must has gotten it from a Trix cereal box. (sorry to bad mouth Trix) If he truly attended a big named university, that fact alone proves that the federal Dept of Education needs to be completely dissolved and the entire leadership should be tried and HUNG for treason! Ridding us of this dept, alone, would not only save us billions of wasted $$$, but save our future generations from getting any more stupid. This is where we need to focus our attention.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,206 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Madjack
    All I know is I want to see candidates who have actually read "AND UNDERSTAND" the Constitution of the United States. I know of no democrats that seem to be able to read, much less be cognizant of what they just read. Look at owebama. He claims to have a big, fancy degree in Constitutional law. He must has gotten it from a Trix cereal box. (sorry to bad mouth Trix) If he truly attended a big named university, that fact alone proves that the federal Dept of Education needs to be completely dissolved and the entire leadership should be tried and HUNG for treason! Ridding us of this dept, alone, would not only save us billions of wasted $$$, but save our future generations from getting any more stupid. This is where we need to focus our attention.


    Establishment politicians of all stripes use the structures set up in the Constitution to pass laws to circumvent the rest of it.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Madjack
    All I know is I want to see candidates who have actually read "AND UNDERSTAND" the Constitution of the United States. I know of no democrats that seem to be able to read, much less be cognizant of what they just read. Look at owebama. He claims to have a big, fancy degree in Constitutional law. He must has gotten it from a Trix cereal box. (sorry to bad mouth Trix) If he truly attended a big named university, that fact alone proves that the federal Dept of Education needs to be completely dissolved and the entire leadership should be tried and HUNG for treason! Ridding us of this dept, alone, would not only save us billions of wasted $$$, but save our future generations from getting any more stupid. This is where we need to focus our attention.


    Establishment politicians of all stripes use the structures set up in the Constitution to pass laws to circumvent the rest of it.

    I think you are absolutely correct about the "Establishment politicians" circumventing it Constitution. But I don't see any structure in the Constitution that would enable these actions, if fact it prohibits them. This can only be accomplished with a complicit Judiciary (SCOTUS)and indifferent society.

    USER WARNING: I am an originalist.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/09/the-originalist-perspective
Sign In or Register to comment.