Here Comes the Executive Order on Background Checks

[Lowe0]

Yes. Imagination is required. I can read the words and still not imagine myself in such a place that I could think that. Similarly, I could not imagine a realistic situation that would make someone like Chris Christie the least worst choice.

I'm not expecting you to imagine yourself in that place, just to accept that gun ownership is not a monolithic political bloc.

 

[SSGSAD]

1. The Clintons had IRS target conservative groups who were making “problems for them” - that will continue if she is elected.
2. She covered Bill’s sexual relations and then used criminal tactics to discredit his accusers in order to maintain power.
3. She laid off the entire White House travel office staff so she could fill the department with family and friends.
4. She looted the White House on her way out, trying to take $190,000 worth of furniture, etc then caused $14,000 in vandalism damage.
5. Huma Abedin is Hillary’s confidant / deputy chief of staff and also linked to the Muslim Brotherhood through her parents.
6. Stood by while Chinese corporations supported Bill’s reelection efforts in exchange for technology secrets.
7. Said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia...a pathological liar.
8. Her admitted use of a personal email server to share classified correspondences illegally.
9. Then deleted 30,000 emails and trying to hide her illegal activities.
10. She’s buddies with Saul Alinsky, the author of Rules for Radicals much like our current president.
11. The Clinton Foundation's Iranian connections, the tax fraud and a deal that facilitated the release of nuclear material to Russia.
12. Finally Benghazi, her inactivity was responsible for the death of 4 Americans. A rescue mission was “spinning up” but told to stand down as not to tarnish the image of the administration. Then she lied about to the public until she was caught and no matter liberals say she was caught.

So liberals (including you) are willing to vote for a person with no executive experience of any kind, who's biggest (non-criminal) political achievement is being married to Bill and has a track record like I listed above? You absolutely have the right to do so, after all 1000's of idiots write ins "Mickey Mouse" in every national election.

I just can't understand how an entire group of people can become so delusional as to think the current president is a "great one" and Hillary would be a "good idea". Liberals seem to be more than willing to put gay marriage and the myth of climate change ahead of national security and international credibility - and you certainly have that right. But know that the 2nd amendment will not be what it is today if Hillary becomes president, to think otherwise is foolish and potentially dangerous.

No one on this board will change your mind, to think otherwise is stupid and a waste of time. But at least be honest with yourself and research your candidate and her history and the potential effect her presidency would have on this country and the resultant long term issues. If you can't take the time to do that objectively then you truly do deserve my, and a good portion of this countries, utter disdain.

You have printed, what I have been thinking, since b c, occupied the White House .....

Couldn't have said it better myself .....

One more thing, AWB, will come back, "bigger & better" .....

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not expecting you to imagine yourself in that place, just to accept that gun ownership is not a monolithic political bloc.

The point at issue is that we generally consider the people we would encounter here to place a high value on guns. One assumption we tend to make which is not necessarily true, and very often isn't, is that most gun owners value freedom in general. At minimum, one doesn't generally expect to find participation on a gun forum from people who place guns at the same level of importance in their political list that I place on a presidential candidate who wants to tinker with the speed limit +/- 5mph.

One of those things I have learned about human nature is that there are many people, even among those who claim otherwise, who truly operate on principle or understand the notion of prioritizing matters of principle. In fact, most people will push for their immediate personal gratification without considering the larger consequences and will at times undercut their long-term objectives in the course of doing so. This is a good example of the latter in that once you remove the right that separates citizens from serfs, you no longer have any real leverage. In case you haven't noticed, there was a time when subjects of the British Crown, post Magna Charta, functioned as de facto free citizens. You may also notice that this time has come and gone, and they now live their lives under terms dictated not by the monarch but rather the Parliament, but nevertheless they beg for what they want rather than demanding the freedom to which they are entitled as their right. You may notice that this reversal went hand in hand with the virtual eradication of gun rights. You may also notice that the British concept of 'constitutional law' is more what we would call precedent than an actual Constitution, such as we have. You may also notice that the same people who spearhead the attack on the Second Amendment support the 'living document' horsesh*t which would shift our system of constitutional law from a binding contract between government and governed to a precedent-like system of suggestion rather than codified law.

Bringing this back to the point at issue, one also has to consider the apparent goals brought to the table. I am not sure if you are the type of person who sees guns like I see fast cars (i.e., they are cool but I lack the ability to build them, drive like an old man, and don't have a fast car, or if it did, it would be a garage ornament), the type of person who likes his Fudd guns, would throw everyone else under the bus, and doesn't really care if we get AWB v2.0 so long as it doesn't affect his double barrel and the free flow of bad advice from Joe Biden, or if a person is really so blind as to believe in a scaled-down version of 'This is America. That can't happen here'.

All said and done, I am with Jamil in that it defies my understanding and apparently defies his understanding that a person who claims to be a gun owner and values the idea to the point of joining and participating in a gun forum could support virulent enemies of the 2A in preference for contrived 'rights' and the demand of authority to thought police other people's children. You obviously either do not understand or else reject the notion of freedom and liberty, and further do not understand that once you undercut general freedom, anything else with which you are left, you have at the pleasure of politicians you no longer have the means to control.

 

[Lowe0]

Principle is all well and good in its own way, but at the end of the day, we're not offered principles; we're offered candidates and parties. I can't get behind the candidates offered, and I certainly can't get behind a party that embraces the kind of people the Republicans do. If Perkins, Fischer, Vander Plaats, etc. ever relinquish their grip, I'll give them another look.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Principle is all well and good in its own way, but at the end of the day, we're not offered principles; we're offered candidates and parties. I can't get behind the candidates offered, and I certainly can't get behind a party that embraces the kind of people the Republicans do. If Perkins, Fischer, Vander Plaats, etc. ever relinquish their grip, I'll give them another look.

OK, you like criminals better than evangelicals.

 

[dirtybird]

Principle is all well and good in its own way, but at the end of the day, we're not offered principles; we're offered candidates and parties.

The candidates have principles and morals. Well...maybe not hillary...

 

[jamil]

OK, you like criminals better than evangelicals.

Eh, I can live with evangelicals. They're mostly harmless. Criminals? HRC should have had the same thing happen to her career as General Petraeus.

 

[Lowe0]

OK, you like criminals better than evangelicals.

I certainly trust them a lot more.

 

[ghuns]

OK, you like criminals better than evangelicals.

I like any number of criminals that I have been around better than Bryan Fischer. Jess sayin.

 

[Expat]

If said about another religious group, you would be considered a bigot.

 

[ghuns]

If said about another religious group, you would be considered a bigot.

I like any number of criminals that I have been around better than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Jess sayin.

Better?

 

[Expat]

I like any number of criminals that I have been around better than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Jess sayin.

Better?

I was referring to the use of evangelicals as a group, not your post. I don't even know who Bryan Fischer even is.

 

[Lowe0]

If said about another religious group, you would be considered a bigot.

I don't trust Islamic evangelicals either. Fire away.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I cannot understand how anyone could vote for that criminal, even outside the issue of the 2A. Ignoring everything she has done or has said to make yourself feel better on certain issues, which won't change either way, is not very intelligent. She isn't the lesser of two evils; she is the evil we need eradicated from public office.

 

[ghuns]

Well, there's always...

 

[Caleb]

 

[Lowe0]

Well, there's always...

Good point, but I don't see him competing with the two main parties. (Yes, I've heard the argument before that that attitude is the reason why. I get it, but I'm still stuck with the reality that a D or R will win in 2016.)

 

[cbhausen]

Who STILL wants Hillary for president???
Sources: Review affirms Clinton server emails were 'top secret,' despite department challenge | Fox News

 

[Birds Away]

Who STILL wants Hillary for president???
Sources: Review affirms Clinton server emails were 'top secret,' despite department challenge | Fox News

The leftist media will ignore that. You will only hear about it on Fox.

 

[rhino]

Is it going to take churchmouse buying cheeseburgers for all you to make you stop?