H.Clinton again shows true colors regarding firearms..

Status
Not open for further replies.
She will probably run, but cannot win. Many dems understand that very well and will torpedo her just as they did Howard Dean. "Electability". Ironically, they selected a first-class boring dunce instead. :rolleyes:

They might run her as a VP to somebody less offensive, such as Biden. If they were any smart, they would have run Zel Miller.

A national database for firearms? Just another way to create more bureaucracy and justify more harassment.
 
Calling John McCain! Calling Senator John McCain!

Where do YOU stand on this (firearms database) isssue, sir?

Here's a great opportunity to show your understanding/support of the 2A, Senator.
 
I call BS. McCain doesn't have anything. Look at his stance on illegal immigration.

Back to the main subject, the most common crime guns are (if I remember correctly) split between two general groups:
-about 4 or 5 types of really cheap, really crappy guns in small calibers that were probably made in 5 minutes each with a sheet metal stamper. Names like bryco, jennings, etc come to mind. Even if the gun didnt explode halfway through the first mag, the bullets are so weak it wouldnt matter.
-high quality guns that were obviously surplus police firearms such as 38 caliber S&W revolvers and 9mm Glocks. In a few years we should start to see the used 40 S&W Glocks showing up in crime statistics as today's cops start to replace their old guns.

No gun banner has ever suggested either:
-a way to stop criminals from setting up gun factories in warehouses and cranking out cheap disposable pistols (it isnt possible anymore than permanently stopping weed or meth or booze is)
-stopping police from selling their used pistols onto the secondary market every couple of years (it isnt politically popular to stop the police gravy train. However, it is funny when NJ politicians try to sue Glock because a pistol they sold to NJ police was resold to a pawn shop and then to a criminal. Then again, NJ police are a criminally suspect class, so Glock was clearly negligent in selling them pistols).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

Remember this when you go to vote in 2008...

SHH! HILL TAKES AIM AT GUNS
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

April 3, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.

Her silent shuffle to the left on the lightning-rod issue is sure to rankle the powerful National Rifle Association and gun-loving heartland voters who will decide the 2008 White House race.

But Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post.

She signed on to the bill last week, immediately after Menendez formally filed it, but never touted her support in a press release. So far, Clinton and fellow New York Dem Chuck Schumer are the sole Senate co-sponsors.

The NRA, gun manufacturers and their congressional allies say critics only want the data so they can sue gunmakers.

The NRA's massive political machine is poised to pound on Clinton in gun-obsessed battleground states during a likely 2008 White House race - an onslaught she may have a tough time countering.
 
Intresting terminology used by the article writer....
The NRA's massive political machine is poised to pound on Clinton in gun-obsessed battleground states during a likely 2008 White House race - an onslaught she may have a tough time countering.
 
I knew that The Slickster was/is hhmmmm...well, "a weasel" long before he became Guv of Arkansas, and waaaay long before he was The Prez...back in the late '70's, when he was Atty Gen of AR.

There is NO WAY I will ever vote for The Klintoons to return the White House...

Not even under threat of "Vince Foster-ing"
 
Last edited:
-a way to stop criminals from setting up gun factories in warehouses and cranking out cheap disposable pistols (it isnt possible anymore than permanently stopping weed or meth or booze is)

With computer-controlled machining getting cheaper and cheaper, that's going to be even easier in the future. Any warehouse, any basement, any boat could be a cheap-gun factory. Literally, it's a matter of letting computer-controlled routers turn blocks of aluminum or steel into machined parts while you watch. Aluminum can be melted down from scrap cans, whatever, and cast into blank blocks.

Some of the old "tube reciever" machine guns probably would not be that hard to copy.

And "gun control" affecting only major manufacturers selling to legal buyers does nothing to stop that.
 
Any co-signers on Sen Clinton's bill? Has the bill been sent to sub-committee?

I'm hoping Russ Feingold will torpedo it within the party as a stupid idea.

After his more recent statements that the assault weapons ban was "symbolic" and ineffective in preventing crime, (he voted against renewing it) and gave people the impression that the goverment wanted to take away their guns, I have a higher opinion of him.

If the "armor piercing" idiocy goes through, someone needs to do a PR event with an old, old Tokarev TT or something, put some holes through a Type II, and ask if they plan to ban ANTIQUE guns that date back to WWII...as a way of making it look very stupid and silly. True armor-piercing anything like tungsten core is ALREADY illegal.
 
They might run her as a VP to somebody less offensive,
Now who would be dumb enough to let her run as their VP? That would be like putting a contract out on yourself.

At the current rate of cultural evolution it will be a Richardson-Villaraigosa ticket.
You really need to use smilies when you say something like that!
 
I would almost like to see Clinton make it into the White House.
It would give us another 4 years of ineffective, out-of-touch leadership that will enable third parties to make a push for power.

Get the people angry and give them a good leader. Now if we could avoid another candidate like Badnarik we'd be doing well.
 
There's one way she could win. The same way her husband-of-convenience did: with a plurality vote.

I think I'm going to ditch my third-party nonsense for a while. It's hard to imagine a Republican so bad that it would be worth getting Hillary as President just to make a lame statement.

On the other hand I'm sure that, before he goes to bed every night, John McCain prays that Hillary runs.
 
Now if we could avoid another candidate like Badnarik

It's not about avoiding Badnarik. It's about finding a good candidate who can get at least 40% of the popular vote.

Think we can do that in the next couple years? Yeah, right.

We Libertarians need to be careful not to become like the Democrats currently are: willing to sacrifice the long- and short-term good of the US to score a political point. If that's our attitude, we do not deserve to win.
 
ArmedBear,

abandoning your third party "nonsense" guarantees that third parties will never have the chance at actually gaining power.
This board had the same argument last election. There were those who voted Republican simply to keep Kerry out of office. While its your vote and you must do with it as you please, consider that vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.

The enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend.
 
it won't happen in the next 2 years and I doubt it will happen with the two parties controlling the elections.

I think we're going to have to get our own RINO into power in order to make room for libertarian ideas.
 
You might be surprised. John Edwards did allright for
himself last election. Didn't win, but did get a lot of
votes. With HRC running as VP and him for the big
chair, the Dems just may pull it off. Won't be
with my vote, but it's only one nay..:uhoh:
 
The enemy of your enemy is... well, the enemy of your enemy. And that's good enough for me when that's the choice before me.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.

And I'm not even religious. Maybe that's why I'm willing to take the best I can realistically get at the time instead of a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me. I vote Libertarian!" which will look great on my car while my house is searched for firearms and ammunition. No thanks.

I'm about done with this whole ideological purity thing. Alliances that win are more important than egos that lose.
 
Alliances that win are nice as long as you are among the winners. So far, the only alliance I see consistently winning is the one that keeps the halls of government stocked with the letter D & R. They do what they must to maintain power and control. Why wasn't Badnarik (as bats**t crazy as he sounded) allowed to debate with the other candidates?

Civil rights haven't exactly been doing much in the way of gaining lost ground and most recently, we have El Presidente to thank for that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top