Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Hillary - and the 2nd amendment

Let's assume she wins.......

Then what?

Will Pro-Constitution folks and the NRA stop her?

If unchecked, how far do you think she will try to go?

read this for the answer:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...your-right-to-self-defense-good-bye.html

How far? As far as she can, only stopping when there is nothing left to take.

I'm not sure what is a bigger joke in terms of protecting the 2A, the NRA or the GOP.

MOLON LABE CO*KSUCKERS!!!

That's pretty concise. She's said her goals clearly and repeatedly.
1) Remove the protection from frivolous lawsuits for gun manufacturers which results in all gun manufacturers going bankrupt or leaving the country.
2) Remove military style weapons from the streets - which is at a minimum an attempt at a new AWB or possibly pushing for NFA status for all semi-auto firearms.
3) Overturn Heller which allows cities and states to pass any gun control they want to, up to banning firearms.

And what other group do you think is doing a good job at protecting the 2A?

You must be the reason they haven't taken my guns.

In my opinion this will not be the way they do away with guns. Once people are able to sue gun and ammunition companies for wrongful death you just have to get a few people to agree that a company is liable. Enough lawsuits will bankrupt gun and ammo dealers.

Y'all obillously wudn't payin 'tention at the dee-bate.

She *said* she supported the 2A.

So there.

"During the final presidential debate on Wednesday night, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told another unbelievable whopper about the country’s gun laws. In her answer to a question about her views on gun rights, Clinton said she opposed the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which recognized the constitutional right for individuals to own and carry firearms, because it was about whether toddlers should have guns.

Yes, she said that.

It’s a lie so absurd that I honestly don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot: No, the Heller decision was not about toddlers. It had nothing to do with toddlers. Nothing. It’s no coincidence that the word “toddler” doesn’t appear in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case. Nor does the word “toddler” appear anywhere in the 110-page transcript of the case’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.

No mention of toddlers. Because the case wasn’t about toddlers. It was about whether the District of Columbia’s “total ban on handguns” — the Supreme Court’s characterization of the law at issue in the case — was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional and that Heller, a police officer, had a constitutional right to own and bear a firearm in his home. It had nothing whatsoever to do with toddlers.

If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter. But it gets better: after claiming that the Heller decision was all about toddlers, Hillary then claimed that the Constitution guarantees a right to partial-birth abortion, a practice that requires an abortionist to rip an unborn baby from the womb, stab or crush her skull, and then vacuum out her brains. Because Hillary Clinton’s top priority is protecting innocent children from violence."

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19...e-courts-heller-decision-wasnt-toddlers/

If you think there was obstructionism under Obama, you haven't seen anything yet. Republicans have a love affair with Nancy Pelosi in comparison to how much they hate Hillary Clinton. She will have the least cooperative house probably in US history.

And I hope it starts with a massive repudiation of anything having to do with gun control.

How do we make an AR-15 into a big middle finger? Because that's what the House will be for Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Hillary says she supports the 2nd Amendment. But what she means by the the 2A and what you and I mean by it are oceans apart. She supports the military, police, and the Secret Service having guns. That's all. Because she thinks that "militia" means military.

In other words, she wants the government to have guns, but not the people.

She actually said it a second time that I caught.

You assume that Ryan hasn't cut a deal with Hitlery to not support Trump in exchange for keeping his job. I'd not make that assumption. The corruption in DC runs very deep,

Icing on the cake. They're already doing end runs galore around the 2A via regulation "interpretation," for example the recent ITAR rule on gunsmiths.

1 Samuel 13:19: Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears."

That's an ugly thought

I have seen nothing from Ryan and his ilk that would lead me to believe that they would not sell out party, nation, or parentage to protect their position.

If you think zero abused executive orders, it'll seem like nothing compared to what she has in store for us.

Maybe it's tinfoil hat talk but as much as she hates the NRA, I can see her, by executive order, declaring the NRA a terrorist organization along with all its members. So overnight we're all on the no fly list. May not affect some of you but some us will be severely impacted. I have aging parents on opposite sides of the country I'd most likely never see again.

There was an article not too long ago (here or on one of the other shooting web sites) addressing how they'll gain compliance. Those not turning their guns in will have their assets frozen or children will be picked up at school by the authorities and until you turned over the guns the kids would stay a ward of the state. Can't have those children exposed to the danger of guns in the home.

I haven't seen anything out of the House of Representatives or the Senate in the last eight years that makes me think they'll do anything other than cower and pee all over themselves.

The few strong ones, both in the House and Senate as well as some of the strong outspoken citizens will have an accident, commit "suicide" or simply disappear. That will be a pretty strong message to the rest to toe the line.

I would hope the House and Senate would step up to stop her but their past performance doesn't do much to engender confidence.

There will be some local level law enforcement who will stand up to her just like we've had with some of the sheriff's departments in recent months. A few governors may actually find a pair but they'll likely cave when the federal teat dries up.

I hope I'm wrong.

Watch out for crossfireoops, he'll call you a defeatist. And he's always right while the rest of us are always wrong.

We are at the point where your scenario makes more sense than any scenario the democrats have for explaining their actions. I put absolutely nothing past them. They are a singularly nasty group of people willing to stop at nothing.