One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Donald Trump Suggests ‘Second Amendment People’ Could Act Against Hillary Clinton
Page <<first <prev 13 of 23 next> last>>
Aug 11, 2016 22:08:02   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Who the hell are you to say what should be banned. Try looking up statistics sometime and tell me what percentage of murders are committed by AR15's and AK 47's. The fact that maniacs, criminals, and terrorists can go to our southern border and get anything they want is exactly why I don't need you to tell me I shouldn't have my AR, AK and SKS. Besides the terrorists are starting to figure out they can take more people out with explosives. Big difference between a duck and a raptor. Too bad you don't know the difference.
saltwind 78 wrote:
Loki, Any weapon that can shoot a large magazine of ammo rapidly without cocking in-between rounds should be considered a military style weapon. I own a .357 mag pistol to protect my home, and I have no doubt it would do the job.I think that a 9 mil is fine also. Hunting rifles and shot guns are fine. Semi automatics not so much. Rifles like the AK47 and the M16 and those designed to look like and perform like them should be banned for public use.
The fact that maniacs and terrorists have access to them scares me. I don't want to see the blood and guts of my grandchildren on the carpet of a movie theater or concert hall. All this crap about what constitutes a military style weapon is nonsense. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck, IT'S A DUCK.
Loki, Any weapon that can shoot a large magazine o... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 22:24:39   #
Gener
 
lindajoy wrote:
Incorrect~~~~

Disregarding the Declaration of Independence for the moment, we see the Constitution starts off with;
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...WE THE PEOPLE, DO ORDAIN...

Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.under the laid foundation of the Constitution, not any assumed Unwritten law of the Constitutional, which does not exist to begin with..

If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they “arise under the Constitution”; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of judges on the supreme Court. But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the “bill of rights”, those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!
The Constitution was never intended to define "our rights" that we gave them when saying their purpose is defined in Constitutional law only...

You are absolutely correct in their over reaching in hearing and ruling on cases that are not of Constitutional value and should have been returned to the state court level with a disavowment to hear the issue..
Incorrect~~~~ br br Disregarding the Declaration ... (show quote)



You are absolutely right, Lindajoy. It starts off with "we the people." The government is broken down into three sections in order to degraded the opportunity for the elite to come to any conclusions that cannot be checked by other parts of the elite. (Yes, the elite existed then as well and were well documented by the founding fathers). But the founding fathers also knew that separating the government into three branches in and of itself would not be enough to stop the elite from seizing power. Therefore, they defined the ultimate form of government as, "we the people. The people are the government. They choose their leaders and ideally if those leaders did not conform to the will of the people there were provisions that allowed for recall. We have forgotten that. We have been lied to. We have been told the government is the ruler, not the people. And to make sure we get the message, they attempt to take our guns away from us so we cannot fight back. The elite are the elite. That's what they are. And they don't give one damn about you and me. They think that we are a subhuman species who will mess things up and have to be totally controlled. In fact, they think there are too many of us and that they are going to have to kill off 6 or 7 billion of us. This is a fact. They have said so themselves. You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones, or David Icke, or ten thousand others who are trying to inform us, you can listen to what the elite themselves are saying to us. The Bilderbergers really exist. That has been well documented, yet the news sources, including Fox News, (who at one time did admit they exist) pretend they don't exist. This is fact, it is not theory. And these people have stated the only way we can have a good world is to keep the population under five million and have absolute complete control over every human being, such that no one would ever dare to say no to them. This is documented, it is fact, and yet the liberals just ignore it. They think the revolution is over and everybody now sees how great democracy is and would never try to change it. Even though tyranny has reigned in Russia, in China, Hitler tried it, and they have done so throughout history, and they are not going to stop for the United States. These people, like Peter, have had the wool pulled over their eyes and they are not facing reality. The constitution is the only thing that protects us, and that is why they want to do away with the second amendment, because if they can do away with one part, the door is open to do away with it all. The elite even creates false flags, staged uprisings, murders, assassinations, to get the people to be willing to give up their guns. They have never stopped and they never will stop, until they have accomplished it. This is fact, and it is what the liberals do not want to face. They live in a dream world. It isn't pretty but it is the way the world is.

We the people are the government, but only as long as we can back up our governorship with force, or they WILL take it away from us. That is a fact and it is indisputable.

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 22:31:07   #
Gener
 
JFlorio wrote:
Who the hell are you to say what should be banned. Try looking up statistics sometime and tell me what percentage of murders are committed by AR15's and AK 47's. The fact that maniacs, criminals, and terrorists can go to our southern border and get anything they want is exactly why I don't need you to tell me I shouldn't have my AR, AK and SKS. Besides the terrorists are starting to figure out they can take more people out with explosives. Big difference between a duck and a raptor. Too bad you don't know the difference.
Who the hell are you to say what should be banned.... (show quote)



What these people don't understand is if you take guns away, the criminals will still have guns. They don't live by the laws, and many of them have guns provided by the elite who purposely intend to create mayhem in order to gain control. This is fact, but it is just ignored by the liberals. They have no answer to this argument so they just ignore it. As they do so many things. The liberals don't have ONE valid argument about anything. Not one. Yet they continue to spill their poison and idiotic nonsense all over this forum and other places as well. It is time for them to wake up, because if they don't, they are going to wake up soon in a very hellish place.

Reply
 
 
Aug 11, 2016 22:34:15   #
Gatsby
 
I suggest that you read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, as defined there-in is the Constitution which was RATIFIED.
There is no other.


saltwind 78 wrote:
Gatsby, Ain't a lot of judges that attain the right to be considered Supreme Court Justices are corrupt. I can only think of one, and he was forced to resign. Thats why they are investigated by the national bar association, the Justice Department and the Presidents office before they are ever nominated. Then they have to approved by the US Senate. Personally, I think we have nothing to worry about.
The question of interpreting what the US Constitution is and what it isn't is vital. If it was to have any meaning at all, somebody had to have the power of judicial review, otherwise everybody could interpret it the way they want to, and it would not mean anything. The Supreme Court assumed this power under the Marlborough v Madison case. It isn't perfect, The Supreme Court has made some terrible mistakes, but it has worked, and is now part of the Unwritten Constitution.
Gatsby, Ain't a lot of judges that attain the righ... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:20:36   #
Ike Loc: Minnesota Iron Range
 
katgiles wrote:
If you believe Trump was calling for Hilliary's assination, you are as stupid as all the rest of the liberals. He was calling for his supporters to vote, and mentioned that the NRA has a lot of money, a lot of supporters, and that their influence could make sure the second amendment stays. Get real. Trump would not call for anyone's assination. He is not stupid.


Right. And that's why he said that if it happens, it will be a horrible day. Makes sense.

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:22:11   #
Ike Loc: Minnesota Iron Range
 
robmull wrote:
It's just the secular liberal progressive MSM and the current administration that are trying to "spin" a [and every] very simple conservative messages to America, rjo; that our 2nd Amendment and the NRA are here to stay. And you are absolutely "right." The "demonrats" are the party of the KKK, Naziism, killing presidents, burning conservative opposition signs in front yards, domestic terrorism; and now "PIGS," are back on the (D) menu; as in OWS, BLM, {SDS & Weather Underground Jr}. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TRUMP!!!
It's just the secular liberal progressive MSM and ... (show quote)


But I thought David Duke was running as a Republican.

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:27:43   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Ike wrote:
But I thought David Duke was running as a Republican.

Yea yea and senator Byrd was a Democrat. So what.

Reply
 
 
Aug 11, 2016 23:33:54   #
Bun723
 
You speak the truth, this election maybe the most important election this country will face. We will either continue to the cliff or the country will take a much needed change of direction. I am retired law enforcement and attended a terrorist seminar in the late 80's. One of the instructors a CIA agent made this comment "do not worry about Russia or China the United States will be destroyed internally". It has taken many years for me to understand the meaning of his statement so many years ago. We have been lucky in Florida as we finally elected a businessman for our Governor. Governor Scott is in his second term and has turned our state around.
We have had almost eight years of a community organizer who was a junior senator who thought we had 58 states and that Bush was unamerican for allowing a National Debt of 8 Trillion dollars. We can continue down this path by electing Hillary or give a businessman a chance to turn our country around, that is a decision that the American people have to make. What worries me is the recent decision that asking someone for identification to vote would be to decriminate against them.
In my opinion both voting and driving is a privilege and you should have to show identification for both. Now do not misunderstand Bush was not a great President but both him and Carter are happier today knowing they were not worst President this country had.
It is time to vote what is best for our country not just party lines. Congress has a 23% approval rating which is up slightly prior to Trump. They voted themselves a raise with a 23% approval rating but declined to give social security a cost of living expense. The status quo in Washington is on both sides of the isle and do not want an outsider rocking their boat and that is the main reason that several republicans do not support Trump, they do not want the real truth to be told to the hard working tax paying Americans. Think about it...they consider us mushrooms and want to keep up in the dark and feed us bull crap.
God bless you and God bless America🙏🇺🇸
God bless you and God bless America

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:34:17   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
JFlorio wrote:
Yea yea and senator Byrd was a Democrat. So what.
Not just any Democrat. He was such a good Klansman-Democrat that he rose to be the Senate Majority Leader, and then the President Pro-Tempore, and Hillary Clinton's mentor.

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:40:15   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
lindajoy wrote:
Incorrect~~~~

Disregarding the Declaration of Independence for the moment, we see the Constitution starts off with;
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...WE THE PEOPLE, DO ORDAIN...

Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…”.under the laid foundation of the Constitution, not any assumed Unwritten law of the Constitutional, which does not exist to begin with..

If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they “arise under the Constitution”; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of judges on the supreme Court. But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the “bill of rights”, those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!
The Constitution was never intended to define "our rights" that we gave them when saying their purpose is defined in Constitutional law only...

You are absolutely correct in their over reaching in hearing and ruling on cases that are not of Constitutional value and should have been returned to the state court level with a disavowment to hear the issue..
Incorrect~~~~ br br Disregarding the Declaration ... (show quote)



I was going to say that.

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:46:38   #
Smokie
 
SalMarDib wrote:
Peter, ever hear of the federalist papers. It's the detailed explanation of the constitution written by Jefferson, Madison, et al. They express a need to protect against the "tyrany of government " their own government. It's there. This is not a right wing conspiracy, well not unless you feel Madison & Jefferson were/are part of it.


Right you are!

Reply
 
 
Aug 11, 2016 23:53:29   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Smokie wrote:
Right you are!


According to Liberals, they were evil white slave owners. Ever notice they never say a word about the black slave owners?

Reply
Aug 11, 2016 23:59:48   #
Ike Loc: Minnesota Iron Range
 
PeterS wrote:
>>snip<<

"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.
He added: "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."

>>end<<

So, he is saying that nothing can be done after Hillary is elected and is president--Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.

So what is it that the Second Amendment people can do after the election is over???

I understand that Trump is the nominee of your party so you are going to vote for him but how can you sit there and defend him when it is very clear what he is saying. You people, honest to god, have no ethical center. Indeed, it is a "horrible day!"
>>snip<< br br "Hillary wants to... (show quote)


While it is hard to follow Donald Trump's syntax, to put it mildly, I heard this speech just a little different. I heard him end a sentence after "horrible day," and then begin a new one with "If Hillary gets to put her judges in . . ." So to me, the horrible day would be the day that the second amendment people did something. What could they do that would lead to a horrible day? Not vote, not argue a case in the Supreme Court, not lobby Congress, so what could it be?

Reply
Aug 12, 2016 00:03:33   #
Smokie
 
Ike wrote:
While it is hard to follow Donald Trump's syntax, to put it mildly, I heard this speech just a little different. I heard him end a sentence after "horrible day," and then begin a new one with "If Hillary gets to put her judges in . . ." So to me, the horrible day would be the day that the second amendment people did something. What could they do that would lead to a horrible day? Not vote, not argue a case in the Supreme Court, not lobby Congress, so what could it be?



I don't know .
I believe we have beaten this horse to death.
I'm ready to move on.

Reply
Aug 12, 2016 00:43:59   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
saltwind 78 wrote:
Loki, Any weapon that can shoot a large magazine of ammo rapidly without cocking in-between rounds should be considered a military style weapon. I own a .357 mag pistol to protect my home, and I have no doubt it would do the job.I think that a 9 mil is fine also. Hunting rifles and shot guns are fine. Semi automatics not so much. Rifles like the AK47 and the M16 and those designed to look like and perform like them should be banned for public use.
The fact that maniacs and terrorists have access to them scares me. I don't want to see the blood and guts of my grandchildren on the carpet of a movie theater or concert hall. All this crap about what constitutes a military style weapon is nonsense. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck, IT'S A DUCK.
Loki, Any weapon that can shoot a large magazine o... (show quote)
The civilian version of the AK47 is semi-auto only, it does not perform like the automatic version seen in the ME. The M16 is a select fire (automatic) military issue weapon.

The AR15, which ONLY LOOKS like the M16, is a semi-auto sporting rifle--it is NOT nor should it be considered a military style weapon. The AR15 might look like a M16, but it sure as hell does not perform like one. Except for the bolt action sniper rifles, the standard military rifles issued to all troops are select fire (auto or burst) weapons.

Civilian ownership of FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS is restricted to those who hold a valid Type 3 Federal Firearms License. You will not find these kinds of guns for sale in gun shops and sporting goods stores.

The only semi-autos the military uses that I am aware of are the handguns.

Always a pleasure trying to deal with arrogant hoplophobes who think they have some authority or right to demand that everyone else should embrace their perverted world view.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 13 of 23 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.