US Election 2016 Poll and Disscusion

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I see by the majority of the comments I've read here that this is a conservative republican echo chamber with the usual, uninformed right-wing talking points.

I leave you to your darkness & ignorance.....

Let's please be respectful of one another and refrain from name-calling. It doesn't help your argument any when you come across as rude.

Dreamer, I understand your point about Trump's stance on immigration. But it's not like the wall Trump wants to build won't have a door. He welcomes those that want to work hard for their American citizenship. He's trying to keep out those that want a free ride from the government or could be dangerous.

mimi, I'm not seeing how the Republican Congress is offensive. Am I happy with every law they've passed? No. Do I wish they would pass more laws that are important? Yes. But it could be much worse. For example, if there was a Democratic Congress, our 2nd Amendment rights probably would be non existent or heavily limited right now. The right to keep and bear arms is very important to my family and me because we live on a farm with many animals that need to be protected mainly from possums, raccoons, and coyotes. Also, knowing that my family has firearms makes me feel much more comfortable in case of attack. I know I can defend myself if something happened and I'm not unarmed and helpless. That is another reason why I support Trump. He wants to preserve the 2nd Amendment. He's a member of the NRA himself! Hillary won't even admit that keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right. It seems that she doesn't respect the Constitution of the United States of America.

Well, I am in favor of protecting our borders, but I object to the notion of building a wall. But, even more disturbing to me about Trump’s immigration policy is that he has said he intends to legally challenge the 14th amendment. He knows that he would never be able to get the amendment repealed so he will use the court system to try to deport immigrants that are already citizens in this country.

And as far as Hillary’s position on the 2nd Amendment, it is frequently misinterpreted by her opponents. Here is what she in her DNC acceptance speech:

“I’m not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.”

So SRMW – you have absolutely nothing to fear because Hillary Clinton’ policies on gun control won’t affect people like you one bit. Even if it were true that she wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would be virtually impossible for her to do that. The framers of our Constitution made it extremely difficult to amend it and they did that on purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment (Scroll down the the U.S.)

[RudieCantFail]

And as far as Hillary’s position on the 2nd Amendment, it is frequently misinterpreted by her opponents. Here is what she in her DNC acceptance speech:

“I’m not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.”

If Clinton is referring to the no-fly list and/or terrorist watch list as a blanket gun ban for those that are on it, then there are some problems with it. Using the list to restrict constitutionally protected freedoms of the 2nd and 5th amendments isn't right. Although there are about 50,000 names on the no-fly list alone, only 1,000-2,000 of them are US citizens. Yeah, I know that number is minuscule in comparison, but I don't think it's right to ignore their rights without due process. It's an imperfect list that has on occasion mistakenly put people on it, like Sen. Ted Kennedy. I've heard it's hard to appeal to get off the list, if you think you shouldn't be on the list. I think Sen. John Cornyn put forward a bill that said that if someone on the no-fly list or the like tries to buy a gun, then a judge has a certain amount of time to decide whether the person gets to buy the gun. That method is legal and constitutional because a judge gets to clear it or not, rather than just a blanket ban w/ no questions asked.

[SoaringRockyMountainWay]

[QUOTE=Ive always been a dreamer;338573]
“I’m not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don't want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.”

My reaction to this is that I don't need a crooked politician who knows little of nothing about guns to protect me from getting shot. That's why we have guns in the first place. We can defend OURSELVES from getting shot. I also don't believe that Hillary respects the 2nd Amendment because George Stephanopoulos asked her if she believed an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right and it's not linked to the service in the militia and her reply was, “If it is a constitutional right, then it–like every constitutional right–is subject to reasonable regulation.” She wouldn't even admit that it's a constitutional right. She just wants to regulate it.

Hillary may not be able to directly repeal the 2nd Amendment but she will appoint liberal supreme court judges who will likely vote against 2nd Amendment rights in court cases. The judges appointed will determine how US laws are interpreted. Trump will appoint judges that will vote for 2nd Amendment rights instead of jeopardizing them.

[UndertheWire]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-...her-countries/

ETA: I posted this because in the talk about constitutional rights and feeling safe, something is getting lost. The US has a serious problem with gun deaths and those that support gun ownership should be helping whatever government is in power in their attempts to reduce these unnecessary deaths. It's not just about being able to defend yourself if someone attacks your home - it's about people with mental health issues being able to buy weapons that can kill many people in seconds, it's about your child playing at a friend's house and finding a weapon that has been stored unsafely. I'm sure you can think of other scenarios and although you might decide that you and your family are more careful than that, wouldn't you want other gun owners to have the same level of care.

I live in a country with strict gun control but I'm sure I could get a gun licence if I wanted. I know someone who owns guns that he uses at weekends for sport and pest control (local farmers call on him). He says it influences his behaviour in that he can't afford to drive when drunk or get into a brawl at the pub because he might lose his gun licence. That doesn't sound so bad to me.

[sodascouts]

I have no problem with gun control laws. I do think people should be allowed to buy guns, but if they have to jump through a bunch of hoops first and wait a bit, then so what? They'll get their guns eventually if everything checks out.

I have thought about purchasing a gun to keep in my apartment for self-defense, because I am a woman living alone. The only reason I haven't done so is that it would cost a lot of money and time to not only purchase the gun, but to get properly trained in using it and maintaining it. I'd have to take shooting lessons, practice regularly at a shooting range... it's not just buy a gun and off you go. Plus, there's always the fear that I would get something wrong; mistakes with guns can be deadly. Still, I haven't ruled out the possibility of buying a gun in the future if I move to a high crime area.

However, the argument that one should consider each candidate's potential nominees to the Supreme Court when voting is definitely a valid one, since so many judges like to legislate from the bench. An extremist Supreme Court could do a lot of damage.

[NightMistBlue]

Soda, I don't know that you'd need all that training. A gun range near me offers a one-on-one "First Steps" class for new gun owners that's $85 for 4 hours. I don't think that's rare, you can probably find something like that in your area.

My little gun was given to me by my brother. I've never fired it. I just keep it in case of a collapse of civilization and/or zombie apocalypse. It's peace of mind.

[SoaringRockyMountainWay]

I have no problem with background checks. In fact, I think it's a really good thing. The problem is that the government is already not doing a good job of running the background checks that are supposed to be keeping guns out of the wrong hands. People with mental health issues have been allowed to get a gun because the government systems that run the background checks haven't picked them out. Adding more gun laws isn't going to change that. It's not fair that the majority of the people, which are law abiding citizens, have to have their 2nd Amendment rights jeopardized just because of a few crazies. How about we get the mentally unstable people the care they need instead and not allow them to have a gun and get ISIS out of America instead of taking guns away from citizens that have good intentions. Also, even if all guns were completely banned, people would still find a way to kill each other. Look at the recent terrorist attacks. Knives, axes, bombs and even trucks are used for mass murder. Strictly regulating guns is not going to solve the problem. No matter what tool is used, the problem is that there are people out there who think murder is okay. You can't blame murder on the gun. Like I said, my family has guns on the farm and we never once randomly shot an innocent person. The problem is who is behind the gun, not the gun itself. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to get that. I find it offensive that she wants to take away or at the very least restrict the American people's right to keep and bear arms while she is protected by ARMED guards.

[Brooke]

I have no problem with background checks. In fact, I think it's a really good thing. The problem is that the government is already not doing a good job of running the background checks that are supposed to be keeping guns out of the wrong hands. People with mental health issues have been allowed to get a gun because the government systems that run the background checks haven't picked them out. Adding more gun laws isn't going to change that. It's not fair that the majority of the people, which are law abiding citizens, have to have their 2nd Amendment rights jeopardized just because of a few crazies. How about we get the mentally unstable people the care they need instead and not allow them to have a gun and get ISIS out of America instead of taking guns away from citizens that have good intentions. Also, even if all guns were completely banned, people would still find a way to kill each other. Look at the recent terrorist attacks. Knives, axes, bombs and even trucks are used for mass murder. Strictly regulating guns is not going to solve the problem. No matter what tool is used, the problem is that there are people out there who think murder is okay. You can't blame murder on the gun. Like I said, my family has guns on the farm and we never once randomly shot an innocent person. The problem is who is behind the gun, not the gun itself. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to get that. I find it offensive that she wants to take away or at the very least restrict the American people's right to keep and bear arms while she is protected by ARMED guards.

Good points, SRMW. I'm with you here.

[WalshFan88]

My view on the whole "No Bill, No Break" watch list thing is this:

IMO, someone on the "no fly" or TERRORIST list should NEVER be able to get a gun ever again. I don't care if it's going against the second amendment, IMO they gave up their second amendment rights when they did what they did to get on those lists. I am though, supportive, of letting them have them if they can prove they were on such lists in error and can prove that and go through testing and extensive background checks. But someone who is on those lists actively should never be able to own a firearm, second amendment or not. To me it's insane that someone who is on a national watch list could get a firearm!!! I absolutely detest Paul Ryan in this case (and in most cases, TBH). Their ties to the NRA are more important than national security it seems. I support gun control in this case. I think it's not about taking away all guns, but controlling those who can get them. And for god's sakes, the ones on a terrorist watch list. I was fuming when I saw the whole thing with the house sit in and the fact that the Republicans were against it, for their own personal gain. I feel Hillary's comment sums it up (something to the affect of) "I don't want to take YOUR guns (the good people protecting themselves), I just want to make sure someone doesn't kill you with THEIRS (the bad guys)". I believe in that wholeheartedly. But that's just me.

[UndertheWire]

I have no problem with background checks. In fact, I think it's a really good thing. The problem is that the government is already not doing a good job of running the background checks that are supposed to be keeping guns out of the wrong hands. People with mental health issues have been allowed to get a gun because the government systems that run the background checks haven't picked them out. Adding more gun laws isn't going to change that. It's not fair that the majority of the people, which are law abiding citizens, have to have their 2nd Amendment rights jeopardized just because of a few crazies. How about we get the mentally unstable people the care they need instead and not allow them to have a gun and get ISIS out of America instead of taking guns away from citizens that have good intentions. Also, even if all guns were completely banned, people would still find a way to kill each other. Look at the recent terrorist attacks. Knives, axes, bombs and even trucks are used for mass murder. Strictly regulating guns is not going to solve the problem. No matter what tool is used, the problem is that there are people out there who think murder is okay. You can't blame murder on the gun. Like I said, my family has guns on the farm and we never once randomly shot an innocent person. The problem is who is behind the gun, not the gun itself. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to get that. I find it offensive that she wants to take away or at the very least restrict the American people's right to keep and bear arms while she is protected by ARMED guards.

The recent event in London was a knife attack that killed one and injured 4-5. How much higher would these numbers have been if the attacker had used a gun? The difference is the efficiency of the weapon.

Do you think it acceptable that the US has a homicide rate that is so much higher than any other developed country?