I just don't get it

I just don't get it

Click to expand...

Neither does Hillary, nor any of the other gun control advocates. Our job is to educate those on the fence that have not made up their minds. No point in trying to talk to those who will not listen.

I'm an independent votor, and approach each election with an open mind. However, 2A is non-negotiable for me. I won't be voting for Clinton. I'll have to see how the Republican and Libertarian candidates compare.

She stayed married to her stupid lying husband all of these years. Did anyone ever wonder why? You think maybe she had political ambitions all of these years? I do.

I just don't get it. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

They *do* get it - they just don't like it and have grown up learning that, given enough time and effort, anything can be made to mean anything else if you simply pervert the language long enough.

Said more plainly - they don't actually believe the original words in any way and wish to make them mean something else.

I think this is another example of us having to "take back the language".

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "gun culture".

There is a lot wrong with the gang / thug etc. culture...

H.m.B said:

In a Washington Times article today, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

The former Secretary of State and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.” But she said that approach does not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.

I just don't get it. Why do people have such a hard time understanding that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In my mind, shall not be infringed implies that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.” Period. And since when does a Constitutional right become not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people?” How does this does not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms? Give me a break. If you don't like the Second Amendment, there are legitimate ways to change it. It looks like we have another battle looming over the horizon.

Click to expand...

She needs to watch the Penn and Teller video explaining the 2nd amendment. Excellent, and quite entertaining to boot! Let's see if I can find that....here we go:

well, there is a bit of "spirited talk" (cuss words) that may offend...just search it on you tube, it comes right up, make sure you see the entire version....a bit of bad language, but he hits the point squarely...


Russellc

Penn & Teller on Gun Control +1

Worth watching despite their sometimes foul language -- cuss like a sailor!

If you "don't get it", then you need to start studying the politics of this now socialistic/fascist country government a lot closer because it is only going to get worse. Gun confiscation "for the betterment of society" is merely a pen stroke away - and we will all cave as no person has established themselves as the leader of a free Republic

Well if we don't get politically motivated and vote and do our best to get all the pro-gun citizens in this country to vote...then she will " rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

She could do that if she gets elected and nominates the worst anti-gunners to her administration. Imagine Feinstein or Bloomberg as the head of the ATF or Attorney General?
.

.

The former Secretary of State and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.”

Click to expand...

Not "everyone" should have access to firearms. Look at Columbine, Aurora, Co., Sandy Hook, etc... on the other hand, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun deaths are far less numerous than death by/in an automobile, for example.

It's not a "gun" issue! It's a mental health issue... sad thing is that some of most evil, unbalanced minds can also be quite clever... and there's the rub: Weeding out the freaks.

But she said that approach does not conflict with the rights of people to own firearms.

Click to expand...

The approach here, using common sense, may be what got the ever-capable but extremely-unfortunate Dick Metcalf run out of town on a rail: If I recall correctly, the furor over what Mr. Metcalf said ran along the lines of something like this: Most gun laws already in place do not conflict with the rights of "normal" people to own firearms... meaning, people, who, like most everyone else, that are mentally balanced.

The problem is that the only "normal" people are the ones we don't know very well! <--- humor

OK. Carry on.

There is nothing to "get" so don't be puzzled. Clinton and her cohorts know an armed population is safer than an unarmed one. They have access to the same information we do. They simply don't care about facts or Constitutional freedoms. They don't even care about gun control as such. They want people control. So they just lie about the matter.

Its been done before through sustainable pressure

Look at smoking...Yes, I know its not a good thing - but I have been a smoker for 36 years...so how did we get to where we are today ? Sustainable and constant pressure.

smoking used to be everywhere. The a vocal non-smoking population started the campaign. So then it went (for example) from smoking everywhere, to smoking offices vs non-smoking offices. Then they went to smoking rooms. Out went the cigarette machines. Then it went to outside. Banned in bars. Banned in restaurants. Banned in public places. Must be 30ft or more from any entrance. Taxed the cigarettes to death so they are now 8-9 $$ a pack. So now smokers are outcasts. No rights. Some places want to ban smoking in public altogether. Only your own home, indoors.

Well, take that same applied pressure and you see what is going on with guns. Gun owners don't whine and complain about what they have. But the whiners and complainers are the ones who want to take those rights away. The persistent squeaky wheel.

Who do you think is going to win in the end unless some serious legal (supreme court) action is taken to stop the bull?

rbernie said:

They *do* get it - they just don't like it and have grown up learning that, given enough time and effort, anything can be made to mean anything else if you simply pervert the language long enough.

Said more plainly - they don't actually believe the original words in any way and wish to make them mean something else.

Click to expand...

Excellent summation and right on the head! This current crop of far left leaning liberals will push the envelope as far as they can until they get their way. They care nothing of the Constitution if it gets in the way of their agenda.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

May 6, 2014
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday, the nation's gun culture has gotten "way out of balance" and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."
The former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate said the idea that anyone can have a gun is not in the "best interest of the vast majority of people."

If you, like myself, are not or have never been politically active, now is the time for us to start.
We must do everything possible to keep this lady from becoming the next president of our Great Country.

Bob

At the highest levels like that I firmly believe it is about power and control.

And us peasants don't qualify.

If you are going to have such a thread here, you need to present a plan. Simple political posturing does nothing.

Deeds; not words.

Geno

When Hilary out and out lied about being under fire when she stepped off a plane, and was caught in the lie, did she admit she lied?

No, she simply said "I misspoke". Some wordsmith came up with that nonsense, and I've heard it used by others since then. She will say anything to get elected like every other politician, and when they get caught lying, it rolls right off their backs.

She'll say she's for the 2nd Amendment, but the reality is, she will do anything in her power to make things the way she wants.

Please don't get the idea I am singling her out, I feel just about every politician follows the same agenda.

And us peasants don't qualify.

Click to expand...

Peasants have been known to make a fuss.....

An armed man is NOT a peasant.

Trying to get in "their" head is impossible. I don't even think they know what they are talking about 99% of the time. (See Ghost gun video again...)

Antis are the ones out of touch. They just don't care.

This thread will get locked. Our 2nd Amendment rights among many others are at stake in this next election. The tide must be turned back to our constitution and its people.

Make no mistake, the clinton machine is powerful and is being fine tuned for a presidential run.

What is the possibility of her party nominating a pro 2A candidate? I know it happens at more local levels, but is it even a possibility to have a pro 2A Democrat nominated as their party's candidate for president?