WikiLeaks docs: Hillary will take guns by EO

[bendog]

So much by assange being motivated by truth and openness in society. LOL

Well, he's getting a lot of help from the propaganda mills which are distorting what's in the emails. And, of course, even more help from the LadyGunSlinger type tards.

I've always thought something was off about the guy, but until the election, I gave his motives the benefit of the doubt. I think we should cut Snowden a deal for time served if he comes home and save about 25 mil a year in aid that would have gone to Ecuador.

 

[AZGAL]

Emergency gun-carry in effect during Hurricane Matthew - Florida ...
floridapolitics.com/archives/223761-emergency-gun-carry-hurricane
Oct 6, 2016 - A spot of good news for some Hurricane Matthew evacuees: A law passed last year allows them to carry concealed weapons or firearms ...

 

[P@triot]

"I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." - Gerald Ensley

Liberal Columnist: We’re Coming For Your Guns And We’ll Take Them

 

[AZGAL]

By the late 1960s, the Court had expanded most of the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Second Amendment remained an outlier. Only a smattering of cases had addressed it since the Civil War, and those that did often weren’t favorable to the gun-rights movement: U.S. v. Cruikshank, a Reconstruction-era case, explicitly stated that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states, and the 1939 caseU.S. v. Miller upheld the restrictions of the federal National Firearms Act.

As Michael Waldman noted in his recent history of the Second Amendment, virtually all judges and constitutional scholars believed until recently that there was no constitutional right to individual gun ownership. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a staunchly conservative Nixon appointee, called the idea “a fraud on the American public” in a 1980 interview. The most notable gun-related case of the Rehnquist Court, U.S. v. Lopez, struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 for exceeding Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, not for violating the Second Amendment.

 

[AZGAL]

District of Columbia v. Heller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008
Full case name District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller
Docket nos. 07-290
Citations 554 U.S. 570 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Prior history Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Procedural history Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies tofederal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

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 1975as 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 owninghandguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

 

[P@triot]

They're coming for your guns! Wolf! Wolf!

Dan Agin: Stop Kissing Your Damned Guns and Turn Them In - The Truth About Guns

 

[Vandalshandle]

yawn



press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Oh right, no worries about the bitch violating the Constitution, she can do any damned thing she wants regardless of what the law says. What kind of unAmerican bitch are you?

"bitch"? Another misogynist for Drumpf?

Accurate adjectives aren't misogynist. Also there is no gun show loophole, every gun dealer that sells at a gun show is required to run background checks.

But many people selling guns at the shows are not dealers.

You win the intentionally misleading post of the day award! Your trophy, shaped like Trump's hairdo, is in the mail!

 

[P@triot]

They're coming for your guns! Wolf! Wolf!

Yes. Yes they are. If only you were an informed voter instead of an obedient lapdog...

While glorifying guns, Matt Damon wishes America would confiscate ALL GUNS in 'ONE FELL SWOOP' - The Right Scoop

 

[P@triot]

But many people selling guns at the shows are not dealers.

A.) I should be able to sell my property without the permission of the government

B.) Average Joe Citizen would be denied if requesting a background check on another citizen.

Idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

yawn



press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Oh right, no worries about the bitch violating the Constitution, she can do any damned thing she wants regardless of what the law says. What kind of unAmerican bitch are you?

"bitch"? Another misogynist for Drumpf?

Accurate adjectives aren't misogynist. Also there is no gun show loophole, every gun dealer that sells at a gun show is required to run background checks.

But many people selling guns at the shows are not dealers.

You win the intentionally misleading post of the day award! Your trophy, shaped like Trump's hairdo, is in the mail!

And? Private sales were intentionally exempted by the law, that's not a loophole, is it. And considering a president has no legislative power, only congress can make a change.

 

[Vandalshandle]

yawn



press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Oh right, no worries about the bitch violating the Constitution, she can do any damned thing she wants regardless of what the law says. What kind of unAmerican bitch are you?

"bitch"? Another misogynist for Drumpf?

Accurate adjectives aren't misogynist. Also there is no gun show loophole, every gun dealer that sells at a gun show is required to run background checks.

But many people selling guns at the shows are not dealers.

You win the intentionally misleading post of the day award! Your trophy, shaped like Trump's hairdo, is in the mail!

And? Private sales were intentionally exempted by the law, that's not a loophole, is it. And considering a president has no legislative power, only congress can make a change.

Did you used to operate the Tilt-a-Wheel at the state fair?

 

[OKTexas]

Oh right, no worries about the bitch violating the Constitution, she can do any damned thing she wants regardless of what the law says. What kind of unAmerican bitch are you?

"bitch"? Another misogynist for Drumpf?

Accurate adjectives aren't misogynist. Also there is no gun show loophole, every gun dealer that sells at a gun show is required to run background checks.

But many people selling guns at the shows are not dealers.

You win the intentionally misleading post of the day award! Your trophy, shaped like Trump's hairdo, is in the mail!

And? Private sales were intentionally exempted by the law, that's not a loophole, is it. And considering a president has no legislative power, only congress can make a change.

Did you used to operate the Tilt-a-Wheel at the state fair?

You're the one doing the spinning, I simply stated facts.

 

[Siete]

an EO isn't enough to get our guns .... any idiot should know that.

sheesh ... this shit again?

saggygunslinger's trolling.

 

[P@triot]

And? Private sales were intentionally exempted by the law, that's not a loophole, is it. And considering a president has no legislative power, only congress can make a change.

Did you used to operate the Tilt-a-Wheel at the state fair?

Says the "genius" who thinks that a legal statute is a "loophole"

 

[mudwhistle]

yawn



press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.”

Loophole is a relative term.

As if Hillary is able to be honest about anything.

As she openly admitted, she has a public position and a private position.....and they're usually 180 from each other.....and it's all Abe Lincolns fault.

 

[mudwhistle]

an EO isn't enough to get our guns .... any idiot should know that.

sheesh ... this shit again?

saggygunslinger's trolling.

Nope......she'll use other means to take em. She already has a plan for that.

When she does alot of people will want to kick the shit out of every Democrat they see.
Then you'll wish you had guns.

 

[bodecea]

an EO isn't enough to get our guns .... any idiot should know that.

sheesh ... this shit again?

saggygunslinger's trolling.

Nope......she'll use other means to take em. She already has a plan for that.

When she does I'll kick the shit out of every Democrat I see.

Wolf! Wolf!

 

[Desperado]

Executive order than stack the Supreme Court so when it gets challenged it gets upheld.
A vote for Hiliary is a vote against the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

Executive order than stack the Supreme Court so when it gets challenged it gets upheld.
A vote for Hiliary is a vote against the Constitution.

She also has signed an agreement with the UN........the same UN that Obama turned the internet over to.

 

[skye]

Executive order than stack the Supreme Court so when it gets challenged it gets upheld.
A vote for Hiliary is a vote against the Constitution.

But you think those who will vote for Hillary care about the Constitution?

I got news for you

They don't give a fig!

Sad but true.