Sorry Hillary but Hellar was not about toddlers

[tinydancer]

Hillary is a liar...

Hillary: I am not for open borders

Moderator: Here's a speech where you clearly state you are for open borders, quote "I'm for open borders"

Hillary: I wasn't talking about open borders when I said that, I was talking about energy.

Moderator: What??

That one was a whopper!

 

[OKTexas]

No asswipe....she is going to appoint Supreme Court justices and appellate level judges who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

 

[tyroneweaver]

No asswipe....she is going to appoint Supreme Court justices and appellate level judges who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it wasn't. It was about an off duty cop taking his weapon home. And DC said that's against our laws.
The SC said to not let DC citizens not have weapons is unconstituional
Well Toddler is irrelevent. Which is the whole point of this thread. Hillary was just blowing smoke.

 

[HnL]

No asswipe....she is going to appoint Supreme Court justices and appellate level judges who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Hillary is a liar...

Hillary: I am not for open borders

Moderator: Here's a speech where you clearly state you are for open borders, quote "I'm for open borders"

Hillary: I wasn't talking about open borders when I said that, I was talking about energy.

Moderator: What??

That one was a whopper!

she said that whopper with a straight face too

--LOL

 

[Seawytch]

Hillary is a liar...

Hillary: I am not for open borders

Moderator: Here's a speech where you clearly state you are for open borders, quote "I'm for open borders"

Hillary: I wasn't talking about open borders when I said that, I was talking about energy.

Moderator: What??

That one was a whopper!

No, actually it wasn't a "whopper"...

Here is what she said, per WikiLeaks: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Fact-checks have debated what exactly this means. While Clinton’s campaign says it’s about energy, reasonable people have disagreed. PolitiFact cited people who said they believed it referred to both trade and immigration. FactCheck.org, meanwhile, believed it “was related to trade, not immigration.” However one interprets this, it is also true that Clinton has not called for “open borders” as a policy during this campaign.

Danielle KurtzlebenNPR Politics Reporter

 

[2aguy]

No asswipe....she is going to appoint Supreme Court justices and appellate level judges who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

 

[2aguy]

Hillary is a liar...

Hillary: I am not for open borders

Moderator: Here's a speech where you clearly state you are for open borders, quote "I'm for open borders"

Hillary: I wasn't talking about open borders when I said that, I was talking about energy.

Moderator: What??

That one was a whopper!

No, actually it wasn't a "whopper"...

Here is what she said, per WikiLeaks: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Fact-checks have debated what exactly this means. While Clinton’s campaign says it’s about energy, reasonable people have disagreed. PolitiFact cited people who said they believed it referred to both trade and immigration. FactCheck.org, meanwhile, believed it “was related to trade, not immigration.” However one interprets this, it is also true that Clinton has not called for “open borders” as a policy during this campaign.

Danielle KurtzlebenNPR Politics Reporter

Wow...the stupid is strong with you.....she said

with open trade and open borders

And then she went on to talk about green energy....nice lie though.......do you plug into the borg implant to be brainwashed...or are you just this dumb normally...?

 

[2aguy]

Of course hillary won't take your guns. She'll appoint people who will take your guns
Doesn't matter what your feelings about guns are.
Hillary gave a BS answer.

No, Hillary, The Supreme Court's Heller Decision Wasn't About Toddlers

Heller addressed gun safety exactly as she said, which absolutely IS about toddlers, children, and anyone else killed because guns aren't safely stored. People like you are so gullible and so incredibly uninformed. Any article that meets with your ideology is taken at face value with zero intellectual curiosity on your part.

wrong...that is a lie.....Heller is out there and can be read by even someone like you....

 

[ClosedCaption]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[bendog]

Of course hillary won't take your guns. She'll appoint people who will take your guns
Doesn't matter what your feelings about guns are.
Hillary gave a BS answer.

No, Hillary, The Supreme Court's Heller Decision Wasn't About Toddlers

OMG anti-Heller attny agrees that reasonable limits on 2nd amend to protect kids would be constitutional. OMG

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, right. But, I


mean, you don't necessarily expect a young child to be 6 able to reassemble the pistol. 7 MR. GURA: That's true, Your Honor. 8 However, better safe storage approach is the one used by 9 the majority of jurisdictions, I believe, that do have

such laws, which is to require safe storage, for 11 example, in a safe. And that is a reasonable 12 limitation. It's a strict scrutiny limitation. 13 Whatever standard of view we may wish to apply, I think, 14 would encompass a safe storage provision.

But this is not a safe storage provision 16 because we have specific exceptions that allow you to 17 actually use the firearm in recreational shooting and 18 also in a place of business. And we have litigation 19 history from Washington, D.C., that tells us that we are

not supposed to have an operable firearm for purposes of 21 self-defense because they simply do not trust people to 22 defend themselves in our home. And -- and self-defense 23 is the heart of the Second Amendment right. That is 24 what Blackstone was getting at when he spoke of the

fifth auxiliary right to arms, because it protected the 72 Alderson Reporting Company 5 10 15 20 25 Official - Subject to Final Review

1 right of personal preservation.


2 JUSTICE STEVENS: You say that the right of

3 self-defense was the heart of the Second Amendment, in

4 your view. Strangely that some provisions suggested

that and were not accepted by the authors of the Second

6 Amendment.

7 MR. GURA: Which provisions were those,

8 Justice Stevens?

9 JUSTICE STEVENS: Pennsylvania.

MR. GURA: Well, Pennsylvania's provision 11 was certainly influential. Remember, Madison was trying 12 to mollify the anti-Federalists' concerns. The Second 13 Amendment is clearly addressed to Pennsylvania and New 14 Hampshire and New York and all these other States that

were demanding a right to keep and bear arms, and there 16 was always understood to be an individual right because 17 that is the way in which the right that was violated by 18 the British in the war of revolution that occurred not 19 too long ago. And -

I'm finished. 21 JUSTICE BREYER: Thinking of your exchange 22 with the Chief Justice and think of the trigger lock in 23 your view and what the question was, do you want -- I 24 don't know how well trigger locks work or not -- but do

you want thousands of judges all over the United States 73 Alderson Reporting Company 5 10 15 20 25 Official - Subject to Final Review

1 to be deciding that kind of question rather than the 2 city councils and the legislatures that have decided it 3 in the context of passing laws? I mean, isn't there an 4 issue here and a problem with respect to having courts


make the kinds of decisions about who is right or not in 6 that trigger-lock argument? 7 MR. GURA: When a fundamental right is at 8 stake, there is a role for judicial review, Your Honor. 9 We are not going to see a thousand judges review such

laws because Washington, D.C.'s is the only example of 11 it. 12 JUSTICE GINSBURG: If it's a fundamental 13 right, what about licensing? One piece -- we've talked 14 about trigger locks, we've talked about the ban on

handguns, but there is also a requirement that there be 16 a license for possession of a handgun. Assuming you're 17 right on the first question, that you couldn't flatly 18 ban handguns, what about a requirement that you obtain a 19 license to carry -- to have a handgun?

MR. GURA: Justice Ginsburg, that would 21 depend on the licensing law itself. We don't have a 22 problem with the concept of licensing so long as it's 23 done -24 JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about this very law?

If you take out the ban -- there is a law on the books. 74 Alderson Reporting Company 5 10 15 20 25 Official - Subject to Final Review

1 It's one of the ones that you challenged. It's section 2 22-4504(a). Wouldn't that be okay -- would that be 3 okay? It says that you have to have a license to carry. 4 MR. GURA: So long as the licensing law is


not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, so 6 long as there are some hopefully objective standards and 7 hopefully some process for -8 JUSTICE GINSBURG: It just says -- it says 9 you have to get a license if you want to possess a gun.

What kind of standard? It just says you have to have a 11 license. 12 MR. GURA: Well, the government could set 13 reasonable standards for that, Your Honor. The 14 government could require, for example, knowledge of the

State's use of force laws. They can require some sort 16 of vision test. They could require, perhaps, 17 demonstrated competency. And those are the types of 18 things that we sometimes see; background checks, of 19 course. Those are going to be reasonable licensing

requirements. 21 However, if the license requirement is we 22 only wanted to give licenses to people who look a 23 certain way or depends on how we feel or if the 24 licensing office is only open Thursdays at 3:00 in the

morning -- I mean, it all depends on the implementation. 75 Alderson Reporting Company 5 10 15 20 25 Official - Subject to Final Review

1 And -


2 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What about -- what

3 about age limits -- you've got to be over 18 or you've

4 got to be over 21 to get a license?

MR. GURA: Well, certainly the

6 age-of-majority issue is -- is an appropriate one. I

7 don't think there is a problem with requiring a majority

8 age 18 and then 21 for -

9 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is the age limit

necessarily the same nationwide? Maybe 16 in Wyoming 11 makes more sense but 21 in the District. 12 MR. GURA: Courts would have to examine 13 those at some point. The government would have to look 14 at the circumstances it confronted and enact, up to some

point, an age limit. I think it would be very difficult 16 to have an age limit that goes beyond 21, because that's 17 the majority age for most things in the United States. 18 And, in fact, we have the voting rights cases from the 19 late '60s where -

JUSTICE STEVENS: May I ask this question? 21 Are you, in effect, reading the amendment to say that 22 the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of 23 shall not be infringed? 24 MR. GURA: There is that inherent aspect to

every right in the Constitution.

 

[HnL]

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

 

[2aguy]

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

 

[HnL]

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

 

[2aguy]

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

 

[HnL]

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

 

[2aguy]

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

This is how stupid this policy is.....

2009 Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia

On November 5, 2009, a mass shooting took place at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] The shooting produced more casualties than any other on an American military base.[

----------

Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney tried to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before reaching him.[27] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[28] Army reserve Specialist Logan Burnett tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.[29]

According to testimony from witnesses, Hasan passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians, and instead targeted soldiers in uniform,[30] who – in accordance with military policy – were not carrying personal firearms.[31]

 

[2aguy]

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

 

[HnL]

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...