NRA gun lobby backs Trump and takes aim at Clinton

[rooster59]

NRA gun lobby backs Trump and takes aim at Clinton

By Chris Cummins

The powerful US gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, has endorsed Donald Trump as he attempts to become the next president of the United States.

Hillary Clinton is a fierce critic of the US gun obsession and has vowed to appoint supreme court justices to overturn the law that allows Americans the right to bear arms for self-defence.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-05-21

[NeverSure]

This will be very popular among Americans and Hillary's hatred of guns (even though the hypocritical witch is always surrounded by Secret Service who have guns) will hurt her at the polls. A majority of Americans believes they should have the right to own guns.

Hillary has Secret Service protection for life as a result of Bill being POTUS. They even live at her home. They escort her everywhere she goes. Hillary, give up your SS protection and go around alone and unarmed and then we'll talk about it. You don't even know how to drive a car and go out on your own, you stupid leach!!

Trump 1, Hillary 0.

[Jingthing]

trump is such a liar. He says Hillary Clinton wants to end the 2nd amendment and will do so via the supreme court. That isn't even possible. Sure, the low information and "poorly educated" voters may go for that.

[Grouse]

Well there's a F*****G surprise!

[NeverSure]

trump is such a liar. He says Hillary Clinton wants to end the 2nd amendment and will do so via the supreme court. That isn't even possible. Sure, the low information and "poorly educated" voters may go for that.

Hillary is on record as wanting to end gun rights.

Not possible? There is one Supreme Court vacancy now, and others coming up soon due to the age of the justices. She would have the ability to appoint justices that would declare the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says whatever the SC declares it says.

Game over. She wins. Don't say it isn't possible because she'd do it. Americans are going to vote against Hillary in droves over just this one issue.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

trump is such a liar. He says Hillary Clinton wants to end the 2nd amendment and will do so via the supreme court. That isn't even possible. Sure, the low information and "poorly educated" voters may go for that.

I just raised your "information" and further "educated" you. You can thank me later.

Cheers.

[Jingthing]

Again, wrong. There is only ONE WAY to kill an amendment of the constitution and the supreme court does NOT have that power.

Next ...

[chuckd]

They can't kill it, but they can rewrite earlier SCOTUS decisions and make it virtually impossible for the general population to possess firearms.

Separation of church and state are nowhere to be found in the Constitution but we certainly have it.

It's called judicial legislation.

[Jingthing]

Did Obama take your guns? No, he didn't. Neither will Clinton, that is, if she manages to defeat the vile orange monster.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Did Obama take your guns? No, he didn't. Neither will Clinton, that is, if she manages to defeat the vile orange monster.

Obama didn't have the SCOTUS votes to even try. It became a new ball game when Justice Scalia died.

[Chicog]

It's a load of waffle and NRA members are always going to vote Republican anyway.

Move on, nothing to see here (apart from Trump having to resort to reading notes to avoid putting his foot in his mouth again).

[ilostmypassword]

Separation of church and state are nowhere to be found in the Constitution but we certainly have it.

It's called judicial legislation.

Well, James Madison would certainly disagree with you.

It's true he is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, but let's face it he was a typical card carrying member of the ACLU even before there was an ACLU. Here are a few samples of what that ignoramus wrote.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

[arjunadawn]

There are fewer things more patently obvious then Hillary opposing the 2nd Amendment.

There is an inevitable progression to Progressives' calculations and agenda (Thus "Progressive"= Incremental). Everything is social and every thing is control. Its no wonder then we see the very same mechanics employed universally by national socialists, socialists, communists, fascists, etc. Always social, always division, always conflict, and always limiting the guns in circulation by nefarious means. It is a surprising by product of history then that we note that some of history's greatest abuses are by these very same leftist agenda driven militants.

This is why fearing registrations, fearing confiscations, fearing databases, fearing omnipotent government, fearing social degrees of separation databases, fearing government intrusion, fearing incremental taxation on ammo, etc., underlie all the responses to people like Hillary Clinton (and her ilk).

History constantly reminds us by comparison and contrast that HRC is one more in a long line of despots just waiting for a turn at the podium.

[Pinot]

trump is such a liar. He says Hillary Clinton wants to end the 2nd amendment and will do so via the supreme court. That isn't even possible. Sure, the low information and "poorly educated" voters may go for that.

I just raised your "information" and further "educated" you. You can thank me later.

Cheers.

No, thank you now.

Consistently tinfoil hat delusional.

[NeverSure]

Did Obama take your guns? No, he didn't. Neither will Clinton, that is, if she manages to defeat the vile orange monster.

You are so mistaken. If a new Supreme Court ruled that "a well armed militia" meant something different than prior SC's have ruled, and ruled that it didn't mean that ordinary citizens could own guns, then guns could be taken away.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. It has proved that over and over with rulings. Some call it "legislating from the bench" but activist judges can indeed reinterpret the Constitution to say what they want it to say.

This is why the current Republican Senate has made it clear to Obama that they won't vote on any SC nominee he presents right now. There is an opening since Scalia died, you know. The Senate is saying that it's too close to an election to choose a new justice so wait until after the election.

I'll just keep educating low information people for as long as it takes to show why Hillary will never be allowed by the people to be the POTUS.

Cheers.

[Pinot]

There are fewer things more patently obvious then Hillary opposing the 2nd Amendment.

There is an inevitable progression to Progressives' calculations and agenda (Thus "Progressive"= Incremental). Everything is social and every thing is control. Its no wonder then we see the very same mechanics employed universally by national socialists, socialists, communists, fascists, etc. Always social, always division, always conflict, and always limiting the guns in circulation by nefarious means. It is a surprising by product of history then that we note that some of history's greatest abuses are by these very same leftist agenda driven militants.

This is why fearing registrations, fearing confiscations, fearing databases, fearing omnipotent government, fearing social degrees of separation databases, fearing government intrusion, fearing incremental taxation on ammo, etc., underlie all the responses to people like Hillary Clinton (and her ilk).

History constantly reminds us by comparison and contrast that HRC is one more in a long line of despots just waiting for a turn at the podium.

By "her ilk" do you mean everyone who isn't a wingnut?

"Always social, always division, always conflict, and always limiting the guns in circulation by nefarious means." ???

"History constantly reminds us by comparison and contrast that HRC is one more in a long line of despots just waiting for a turn at the podium." ???

You realize that this is crazy talk, don't you?

[ilostmypassword]

Did Obama take your guns? No, he didn't. Neither will Clinton, that is, if she manages to defeat the vile orange monster.

You are so mistaken. If a new Supreme Court ruled that "a well armed militia" meant something different than prior SC's have ruled, and ruled that it didn't mean that ordinary citizens could own guns, then guns could be taken away.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. It has proved that over and over with rulings. Some call it "legislating from the bench" but activist judges can indeed reinterpret the Constitution to say what they want it to say.

This is why the current Republican Senate has made it clear to Obama that they won't vote on any SC nominee he presents right now. There is an opening since Scalia died, you know. The Senate is saying that it's too close to an election to choose a new justice so wait until after the election.

I'll just keep educating low information people for as long as it takes to show why Hillary will never be allowed by the people to be the POTUS.

Cheers.

Actually, as far back as 1876 the Supreme court did rule that guns could be taken away.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."^[10][11]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution}

[ilostmypassword]

There are fewer things more patently obvious then Hillary opposing the 2nd Amendment.

There is an inevitable progression to Progressives' calculations and agenda (Thus "Progressive"= Incremental). Everything is social and every thing is control. Its no wonder then we see the very same mechanics employed universally by national socialists, socialists, communists, fascists, etc. Always social, always division, always conflict, and always limiting the guns in circulation by nefarious means. It is a surprising by product of history then that we note that some of history's greatest abuses are by these very same leftist agenda driven militants.

This is why fearing registrations, fearing confiscations, fearing databases, fearing omnipotent government, fearing social degrees of separation databases, fearing government intrusion, fearing incremental taxation on ammo, etc., underlie all the responses to people like Hillary Clinton (and her ilk).

History constantly reminds us by comparison and contrast that HRC is one more in a long line of despots just waiting for a turn at the podium.

By "her ilk" do you mean everyone who isn't a wingnut?

"Always social, always division, always conflict, and always limiting the guns in circulation by nefarious means." ???

"History constantly reminds us by comparison and contrast that HRC is one more in a long line of despots just waiting for a turn at the podium." ???

You realize that this is crazy talk, don't you?

No alas, she doesn't . There's very little data in her posting.

[chuckd]

Separation of church and state are nowhere to be found in the Constitution but we certainly have it.

It's called judicial legislation.

Well, James Madison would certainly disagree with you.

It's true he is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, but let's face it he was a typical card carrying member of the ACLU even before there was an ACLU. Here are a few samples of what that ignoramus wrote.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

You're having a hard time reading what I say today.

Show me chapter and verse where the words separation of church and state are mentioned in the Constitution.

I doubt James Madison could find the words either.

After you fail to do that, check out this post.

.http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/903631-is-it-too-late-to-stop-the-donald-trump-machine/page-97#entry10772832

[ilostmypassword]

Separation of church and state are nowhere to be found in the Constitution but we certainly have it.

It's called judicial legislation.

Well, James Madison would certainly disagree with you.

It's true he is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, but let's face it he was a typical card carrying member of the ACLU even before there was an ACLU. Here are a few samples of what that ignoramus wrote.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

You're having a hard time reading what I say today.

Show me chapter and verse where the words separation of church and state are mentioned in the Constitution.

I doubt James Madison could find the words either.

After you fail to do that, check out this post.

.http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/903631-is-it-too-late-to-stop-the-donald-trump-machine/page-97#entry10772832

Who cares if those exact words are there? What James Madison wrote means separation of church and state. And when I say what James Madison wrote, I don't just mean the Detached Memoranda, but the Constitution itself. I mean he wrote the damn thing. I imagine he had a pretty intimate knowledge of it. The conservatives on the Supreme court are always going on about original intent. Well, in James Madison you have the original intender. The Alpha.

[up2u2]

Trump seems to be falling into line with the Republican establishment at a very fast rate.

[sirineou]

Good thing neither of them is going to be president

[lungmi]

More innocents are killed by children playing with guns of parents than by "terrorists" of all kind.

[chuckd]

Separation of church and state are nowhere to be found in the Constitution but we certainly have it.

It's called judicial legislation.

Well, James Madison would certainly disagree with you.

It's true he is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, but let's face it he was a typical card carrying member of the ACLU even before there was an ACLU. Here are a few samples of what that ignoramus wrote.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

You're having a hard time reading what I say today.

Show me chapter and verse where the words separation of church and state are mentioned in the Constitution.

I doubt James Madison could find the words either.

After you fail to do that, check out this post.

.http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/903631-is-it-too-late-to-stop-the-donald-trump-machine/page-97#entry10772832

Who cares if those exact words are there? What James Madison wrote means separation of church and state. And when I say what James Madison wrote, I don't just mean the Detached Memoranda, but the Constitution itself. I mean he wrote the damn thing. I imagine he had a pretty intimate knowledge of it. The conservatives on the Supreme court are always going on about original intent. Well, in James Madison you have the original intender. The Alpha.

Well, since you can't prove anything about the separation powers, how about this, since you claim James Madison wrote it.

What do you think "Shall not be infringed" says?

Those exact words are in the Constitution.

[Grouse]

Again, wrong. There is only ONE WAY to kill an amendment of the constitution and the supreme court does NOT have that power.

Next ...

Add another amendment. No automatic weapons unless you can prove you're a nutter!

[NeverSure]

Did Obama take your guns? No, he didn't. Neither will Clinton, that is, if she manages to defeat the vile orange monster.

Obama doesn't have the votes on the SC. Hillary would have the ability appoint new SC justices who could reinterpret the Constitution.

I don't think you're getting it yet. The Constitution says what the SC says it says.

[Emster23]

The Second amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Not "well armed" At least have inkling of what the words are, please. "Well regulated" to most reasonable people would mean well disciplined, within limits, etc. Not like the yahoos that took over wildlife refuge in Oregon, for example.

This belief that Obama and now Hillary want to take everyone's guns away so they can be sent to some sort of socialist gulag is beyond absurd. They would like to prevent unstable erratic nutcases from having guns. Who wouldn't? The NRA

[slipperylobster]

Again, wrong. There is only ONE WAY to kill an amendment of the constitution and the supreme court does NOT have that power.

Next ...

Has jack diddley squatto do about "killing the ammendment".

Interpretation is what the Supreme Court does.

It is a broad ammendment..originally meant for state militias so they could kick butt on the british.

Edited May 22, 2016 by slipperylobster

[ilostmypassword]

Well, James Madison would certainly disagree with you.

It's true he is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution, but let's face it he was a typical card carrying member of the ACLU even before there was an ACLU. Here are a few samples of what that ignoramus wrote.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

You're having a hard time reading what I say today.

Show me chapter and verse where the words separation of church and state are mentioned in the Constitution.

I doubt James Madison could find the words either.

After you fail to do that, check out this post.

.http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/903631-is-it-too-late-to-stop-the-donald-trump-machine/page-97#entry10772832

Who cares if those exact words are there? What James Madison wrote means separation of church and state. And when I say what James Madison wrote, I don't just mean the Detached Memoranda, but the Constitution itself. I mean he wrote the damn thing. I imagine he had a pretty intimate knowledge of it. The conservatives on the Supreme court are always going on about original intent. Well, in James Madison you have the original intender. The Alpha.

Well, since you can't prove anything about the separation powers, how about this, since you claim James Madison wrote it.

What do you think "Shall not be infringed" says?

Those exact words are in the Constitution.

First of all, the question of separation of powers is about the relationship between the executive branch, legislative, and judicial. What I called you on is the separation of church and state. You claim because those exact words aren't in the constitution, that the Constitution calls for no such thing. Yet it's clear that James Madison means exactly that. Or do you have some other interpretation of what he wrote? Please, keep your facts straight.

[quandow]

In NO scenario will $hillary become the next POTUS. The amount of voter fraud that has been exposed in SPITE of Lamestream Media's attempt to smother it has pissed off too many voters. Trump is a baboon but Clittery Hilton is pure corporate evil.

Bottom line, Trump has come out against TPP which is, to date, the most heinous legislation ever to be proposed. $hillary switched to be against TPP a short while ago but as a career liar, the INSTANT she plopped her burgeoning buttocks in the oval office, she would ramrod that trade agreement down the throat of the world so fast it would surely make your head spin.

A baboon; a thieving, lying corporate shill; or a Quixotic peacemaker. Seems to me that Bernie wouldn't be quite so bad, considering the alternatives.