Restrictions

[Buck2732]

Hi the hoard. From my side of the pond hearing about your up and coming election I have one question?

Which of the candidates is the bigger threat to the way you folks can own, and buy a firearm?

I am not trying to spark a huge political debate, just curious. As this side of the pond we are pretty much vilified by all the political parties.

[37L1]

The liberal democratic candidate, who shall remain nameless because I'm sick of hearing her BS.

[VASCAR2]

"her" is the key word! I've been muting the TV when anything political has come on the channel where the TV is tuned. My TV isn't on much these days, really very little on that interest me.

[rabiddawg]

Buck, it is not so much the candidates that scares me rather the Supreme Court nominations that are likely to happen during the next term. That will have more impact on gun owners than any politician.

[biodsl]

Thanks for asking, Buck. There's no doubt that the Democrat candidate threatens our gun rights more than Trump. But this battle is not just fought at the national level; state by state we're losing the battle. Here in Oregon we have a Democrat governor and the Democrat party holds significant majorities in both the House and Senate. They can push through pretty much anything they wish. I expect a magazine round limit of 10 or maybe even five rounds when the legislature meets in February.

If you're interested, go to Cease Fire Oregon to have a look at what we're up against in my state.

https://www.ceasefireoregon.org/our-plan/

Pray for us.

[mdram]

if you look around you will see states are tending to loosen laws. constitutional carry is gaining ground. 5 or 6 states in the last year or 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

[Josh]

state by state we're losing the battle.

Actually we're not. Nothing has happened at the Federal level in years. A few states are losing ground, the one I'm currently stationed in being one. But overall, more states are gaining new firearms freedoms. We're now in the double digits on states that have constitutional carry. Every state has some form of concealed carry. NFA has become legal in more states. More states have removed the language stating that registration in the NFRTR was a defense to prosecution. Silencers are legal for hunting in more states. The West Coast and the most of the Northeast are losing more than they're winning. The rest of the country is embracing freedom!

[stanc]

Hi the hoard. From my side of the pond hearing about your up and coming election I have one question?

Which of the candidates is the bigger threat to the way you folks can own, and buy a firearm?

Clinton certainly appears to be the bigger threat. She has been consistently in favor of increased restrictions on all types of guns.

Trump's official position is pro-gun, but IMO that stance should not be taken at face value, because it was adopted only after he began seeking the Republican nomination. Prior to this campaign, Trump was in favor of a ban on rifles like the AR-15, and he praised and gave financial support to Clinton. Therefore, he might actually be the bigger threat, simply because he is a New York liberal who could very possibly be a "Trojan horse" candidate.

[1075 tech]

Clinton certainly appears to be the bigger threat. She has been consistently in favor of increased restrictions on all types of guns.

Trump's official position is pro-gun, but IMO that stance should not be taken at face value, because it was adopted only after he began seeking the Republican nomination. Prior to this campaign, Trump was in favor of a ban on rifles like the AR-15, and he praised and gave financial support to Clinton. Therefore, he might actually be the bigger threat, simply because he is a New York liberal who could very possibly be a "Trojan horse" candidate.

Actually had this same conversation at my LGS a few months ago. Either way, we're in trouble.

[montana]

[/B]

Actually had this same conversation at my LGS a few months ago. Either way, we're in trouble.

I doubt it since his boys are pro second amendment but one never knows for sure. In either case if he appoints the strong Second Amendment justices to the Supreme Court as promised, that would do more for gun rights than most the Republican presidents have ever done. We do know what the opposition will do, so there is no other choice in my reasoning.

[LRRPF52]

Federal-level bans are a fast way to get booted from Congress.

Of the two candidates, Hillary has stated that banning magazines, assault weapons, and everything that was covered under her husband's AWB in 1994 is what she will be making one of her top priorities, kinda like Obama wanted to make healthcare deform his top priority.

Presidents normally get maybe 1-4 campaign issues to work on with their political capital after getting into the WH, then they spend the rest of their administration dealing with the previous administrations' failures, especially on foreign policy. Many don't even get to achieve one major accomplishment in office.

Now that the failed Hillarycare of 1994 (passed off as Obamacare with some affirmative action college law weaseled in) has raised premiums to unbearable highs, the next administration is going to have to spend political capital on dealing with that, which will not go easily through Congress and all their special interest support from health insurance companies.

Americans are already overburdened with the new premiums, and that will play a large factor in this election and the first legislative season, regardless of who is in office. This will weigh more heavily than any proposed firearms legislation, which will have a hard time making it out of committee even after Sandy Hook or Pulse Nightclub events, where Hillary's own staff lamented that the murderer was tied to terrorism and had a father who is running for president of Afghanistan in absentia, with a heavy case file already from the FBI for terrorist-like behavior in the past.



With the mounting avalanche of evidence pointing to decades of criminal conspiracy from team Clinton, the FBI, presstitute brothel media, and major corporations/Clinton donors, a Hillary administration will have to spend all that effort on fighting back multiple cases for impeachment, which could begin before the inauguration.

[stanc]

I doubt it since his boys are pro second amendment...

That didn't stop him from wanting to ban military-style semi-autos before.

[stanc]

With the mounting avalanche of evidence pointing to decades of criminal conspiracy from team Clinton, the FBI, presstitute brothel media, and major corporations/Clinton donors, a Hillary administration will have to spend all that effort on fighting back multiple cases for impeachment, which could begin before the inauguration.

If you're right, then Hillary may pose less of a threat than Trump.

[JASmith]

Remember that the first female president will be unimpeachable much the same way the first minority president has proven to be unimpeachablr.

Unlike a white Anglo-Saxon male president, attempts to impeach her would be branded sexist.

Impeachability may actually be the deciding factor for thinking voters.

[Texas]

Neither one are a threat if you live in TEXAS!

[montana]

That didn't stop him from wanting to ban military-style semi-autos before.

He wasn't running for president on a pro second amendment ticket when he stated that. I wouldn't even try to guess what his real opinion is on assault weapons but I doubt he would back stab his supporters in the back, it would be bad for business. With Hillery we know what were going to get and it isn't pretty.

[dammitman]

He wasn't running for president on a pro second amendment ticket when he stated that. I wouldn't even try to guess what his real opinion is on assault weapons but I doubt he would back stab his supporters in the back, it would be bad for business. With Hillery we know what were going to get and it isn't pretty.

agreed,,,,,

[LR1955]

Enough of this.

Trump says he will not try to ban firearms, magazines, etc. Period.

Clinton says she absolutely will, even if it takes a presidential order. Period.

That is a pretty stark contrast. Yet you are arguing that Trump is a bigger threat.

That is you deliberately antagonizing people who have a stake in this election. Those who own firearms.

I believe Buck has gotten his answer.

So, this thread is closed.

LR55