NRA gun lobby backs Trump and takes aim at Clinton

[Traveler19491]

I find it interesting that there is a faction on here insisting that Hillary wants to abolish the Second Amendment. First, that's not possible. The only way to alter the U. S. Constitution is by amendment, which requires two thirds super majorities in both Houses of Congress, and ratification by 75% of the states. It has been said on here that a SCOTUS decision has the same effect. Not so. A SCOTUS decision only applies to individual laws, not to the Constitution or any of its Amendments. What could possibly happen would be that a state law would be passed, challenged, and SCOTUS could rule in such a way as to nullify a prior decision, which is what Hillary is in favor of. The particular SCOTUS decision she opposes is District of Columbia v. Heller, in which, by a five to four majority, the Court decided that Washington, D. C.'s ban on handguns violated what the conservative majority deemed was a Constitutional right to own any type of conventional weapon for self defense. The liberal minority opined that gun ownership was not a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment, but applied only to gun ownership in the context of militia service (as is clearly stipulated in the wording of the Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is my personal opinion that gun ownership is not a protected right under the Second Amendment. That being said, I have nothing against gun ownership by responsible individuals, but the current state of unlimited, unwarranted, and unregulated ownership is posing unnecessary risks to the general population. The U. S. has a mass shooting daily, a school shooting weekly, and a toddler finding an untended weapon and killing either themselves or another on a monthly basis. How does any of this comport with the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

[dunroaming]

Just todays media release to keep Trump in the headlines. The gun loonies are never going to endorse the democrats are they? Another non news statement to give the Trump supporters a hard-on

[Traveler19491]

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.

First, to address your closing statement. "Judicial legislation" is a myth posited by the right whenever judges render a decision they don't like. The legalization of gay marriage, for instance. That has been labeled, "judicial activism" by the opponents of gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. The justices, in my opinion, correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, period. It's funny that "judicial activism/legislation" ONLY occurs when the right doesn't get their way.

As to "separation of church and state"...I have debated this so many times on other fora that I am virtually on autopilot. No, those exact words appear nowhere in the Constitution. However, when SCOTUS, or any Federal judge, has to interpret the Constitution, one of the key factors they consider is the contemporary writings of the framers. One of the most important statements on separation of church and state came from Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802, in which he states, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" And there's that pesky little phrase, which can not, henceforth, be taken to mean that Jefferson had anything other than the lowest opinion of mingling government and the church.

Here are a few others:

"“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, 1822

"“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.” James Madison

“[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.” James Madison

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." President John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, read in full before both Houses of Congress, with no objections.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803]” James Madison

This is but a tiny sampling of the vast number of quotes from the Founders pertaining to their opinion of mingling church and state in any manner. As you can see, their opinions were somewhat negative. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that their intent with respect to the "Establishment clause" of the First Amendment was to insure that church and state remained forever apart, and that the U. S. remain forever a secular state.

[sgtsabai]

I think to have a better view of the Clinton's intent on guns is to check both Bill's and her records and saying on gun ownership. I don't think most that believe we have a right to own guns will like it. By the way, it is gun ownership, gun control is 2 rounds center mass followed by one to the brain pan. Frankly, ok most of you are well aware, I find nothing in either the proto-fascist Trump or the neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall Street criminals/banksters Clintons that would in a million years cause me to vote for either. Both a disaster in waiting for the US and the world. BTW, there are one hell of a lot of progressives that are gun owners and users. While I'm much more of a left wing radical militant, I owned and use a lot of guns. We just don't parade around showing off with weapons like a bunch of redneck fools. Partially owned for use against the right wing wackos when they finally lose that last marble rattling around in their pointy head little pea brains.

[sanukjim]

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.

I think that you missed spelled the last word sir.

[chuckd]

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.

I think that you missed spelled the last word sir.

I think that you missed spelled...misspelled.

From Google

How to spell misspell? Is it mispell or mispel? - Commonly Misspelled ...

[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.

First, to address your closing statement. "Judicial legislation" is a myth posited by the right whenever judges render a decision they don't like. The legalization of gay marriage, for instance. That has been labeled, "judicial activism" by the opponents of gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. The justices, in my opinion, correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, period. It's funny that "judicial activism/legislation" ONLY occurs when the right doesn't get their way.

As to "separation of church and state"...I have debated this so many times on other fora that I am virtually on autopilot. No, those exact words appear nowhere in the Constitution. However, when SCOTUS, or any Federal judge, has to interpret the Constitution, one of the key factors they consider is the contemporary writings of the framers. One of the most important statements on separation of church and state came from Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802, in which he states, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" And there's that pesky little phrase, which can not, henceforth, be taken to mean that Jefferson had anything other than the lowest opinion of mingling government and the church.

Here are a few others:

"“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, 1822

"“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.” James Madison

“[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.” James Madison

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." President John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, read in full before both Houses of Congress, with no objections.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803]” James Madison

This is but a tiny sampling of the vast number of quotes from the Founders pertaining to their opinion of mingling church and state in any manner. As you can see, their opinions were somewhat negative. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that their intent with respect to the "Establishment clause" of the First Amendment was to insure that church and state remained forever apart, and that the U. S. remain forever a secular state.

I posted Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist Association a couple of days ago but it disappeared. Must have been a Fair Use problem.

I cited the Separation clause as the reason for church/state but meant to cite the Establishment clause. My bad.

[sanukjim]

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.

I think that you missed spelled the last word sir.

I think that you missed spelled...misspelled.

From Google

How to spell misspell? Is it mispell or mispel? - Commonly Misspelled ...

I was being facetious but F Y SIR

[Chicog]

It's funny how the electorate have an opinion but they never seem to do anything about it, like vote out the chumps that consistently oppose it:

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

[sirineou]

Here we go again single issue endorsements, and the same old pro and against arguments.

The man is a lunatic, but he will protect our gun rights, and the hell with the country, as long as everyone can have guns everything will be all right.

[sgtsabai]

The Trump is a lunatic alright, but he won't protect any of our rights. Plutocrats rights, yes, ours, no. People still voting against their own best interests.

[NeverSure]

-snip- The liberal minority opined that gun ownership was not a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment, but applied only to gun ownership in the context of militia service (as is clearly stipulated in the wording of the Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is my personal opinion that gun ownership is not a protected right under the Second Amendment.

And here you show how a new and liberal SC could take away the right to keep and bear arms. All they'd have to do is believe what you believe and so rule regarding the Constitution. Gun rights would be lost.

Your opinion flies in the face of SC opinions for 240 years, and flies in the face of other writings by the founders which show what they really meant. It flies in the face of what "militia" meant 240 years ago also. It flies in the face of all American history.

However, unlike what JT said, the Second Amendment doesn't have to be removed or altered to take away gun rights. A ruling by the Supreme Court saying that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms would strip that right away.

Cheers.

[chuckd]

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.

I think that you missed spelled the last word sir.

I think that you missed spelled...misspelled.

From Google

How to spell misspell? Is it mispell or mispel? - Commonly Misspelled ...

I was being facetious but F Y SIR

Are you the only one allowed to be facetious or can others join in the fun?

Cheers (much nicer than F Y SIR)

[JulesMad]

Maybe the NRA want to use Trump for target practices At least it solves one problem

[NeverSure]

[NovaBlue05]

So many Constitutional scholars on TVF. The SCOTUS is assembled to interpret the Constitution. They can interpret it individually in any way they see fit. If they all interpreted it the same, you would always have 9-0 decisions.

But you don't.....right?

[Pinot]

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.

First, to address your closing statement. "Judicial legislation" is a myth posited by the right whenever judges render a decision they don't like. The legalization of gay marriage, for instance. That has been labeled, "judicial activism" by the opponents of gay marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. The justices, in my opinion, correctly interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, period. It's funny that "judicial activism/legislation" ONLY occurs when the right doesn't get their way.

As to "separation of church and state"...I have debated this so many times on other fora that I am virtually on autopilot. No, those exact words appear nowhere in the Constitution. However, when SCOTUS, or any Federal judge, has to interpret the Constitution, one of the key factors they consider is the contemporary writings of the framers. One of the most important statements on separation of church and state came from Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802, in which he states, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" And there's that pesky little phrase, which can not, henceforth, be taken to mean that Jefferson had anything other than the lowest opinion of mingling government and the church.

Here are a few others:

"“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, 1822

"“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.” James Madison

“[T]here remains [in some parts of the country] a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.” James Madison

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." President John Adams, the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, read in full before both Houses of Congress, with no objections.

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803]” James Madison

This is but a tiny sampling of the vast number of quotes from the Founders pertaining to their opinion of mingling church and state in any manner. As you can see, their opinions were somewhat negative. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that their intent with respect to the "Establishment clause" of the First Amendment was to insure that church and state remained forever apart, and that the U. S. remain forever a secular state.

I posted Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptist Association a couple of days ago but it disappeared. Must have been a Fair Use problem.

I cited the Separation clause as the reason for church/state but meant to cite the Establishment clause. My bad.

That's cool. Still trying to connect church and state, eh?

[Rancid]

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

Next ...

Are you under the impression that the US is still a democracy that somehow limits the power of the federal government?

[Pinot]

Who is feeding the lies? In the bizarro world of the wingnuts, Donald Trump tells the truth.

This video is a comedy. The Republicans have been stuck with this lame ass candidate and are now rolling over, holding their nose and praising him. He's the worst thing that could have possibly happened to the Republicans. They're not only finished in this election, but as a viable political party.

I've been a big fan all along because I know it's over before it begins with this idiot.

He's yours. You chose him. He doesn't have a prayer.

[slipperylobster]

The "Don"...

Hillary is looking pretty grim and desperate.

She wants her womanizing husband, "Bill", to pull the weight for her ("My husband is good at economics"..meaning she is not)

Not only that....most of the gun toting Democrats will probably slide over to Trump, now that he has NRA backing. Not to mention that she is dropping in the polls, behind Trump.

Bye Bye Miss Hillary. Your swan song, by the Eagles..."You Can't Hide Your Lying Eyes"

no tears from me.

Edited May 23, 2016 by slipperylobster

[slipperylobster]

Trump sure puts out a good ad.

What's Hillary doing? Too busy fighting off the FBI?

[Traveler19491]

I have to thank you for the comic relief. "We are being silenced"...from the same guy who silences protesters at his rallies, and encourages the crowd to attack them, offering to pay their legal bills if they get arrested; "Dignity"...from a guy who talks about wanting to date his own daughter because she's "hot", and a guy who cheated on his first wife with his second wife, and then cheated on his second wife with his third wife, and is being sued for sexual abuse; "Prosperity"...from a guy who wants to do away with the minimum wage; "Unity"...from a guy who preaches hatred of minorities in a country built by minorities, that has always offered an open door to minorities, but has a history of bigotry against minorities, which he has openly fostered.

You're really an aspiring comedian, right?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Traveler19491

[GeorgesAbitbol]

I always wanted to witness a live bloody version of Idiocracy....I will soon be able to!