Which is more important, the first or the second amendment? Which is really under attack?

[Acim]

I often read with disgust various white wingers claim that Clinton wants to take their guns. They have absolutely no evidence by anything she's done or said

As post #7 notes, with link to HRC website, she clearly wants to ban some guns (take their guns away). I think that's fairly direct evidence.

Here's the part where you get to stipulate what that assertion by you "really meant."

 

[Acim]

Not an answer. How does a gun control law hurt?

Wouldn't that depend on the gun control law?

How does a law controlling speech hurt anyone?

 

[Underhill]

Let's examine the facts
1. Hillary has said that she want's firearm manufactures immunity removed from lawsuits for incidents like "mass shootings"(the shootings are not due to a manufacturing malfunction). Therefore if she believes this, should not all manufactures be held libel for injury/deaths that are not related to manufacturing defects?
2. Hillary thinks "assault weapons" should be banned because "gang-bangers" and criminals have them and is a major reason for deaths among police officers and citizens. This is a false "dog whistle". The majority of deaths from firearms are not caused by "assault weapons". There are thousand of what some consider "assault weapons" in the country today. Does she advocate that it would be illegal to own an "assault weapon"? What is an "assault weapon"? In addition she has stated that reinstating the assault weapons ban and a ban high-capacity magazines would help limit gun violence (False).
3. In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors.
Has said
"The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable." False. a AK-47 is a semi and fully automatic rifle. But I would assume that if you have the necessary license to own a fully automatic firearm and have the money (between $12k and $25k) I guess you could if your state was an open carry state.
see http://www.clinton.news/2016-06-01-hillary-clintons-massive-gun-control-plan.html
5. And the worst: see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
"It’s “worth considering” whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire"

So she wants to ban assault weapons. Arguing semantics is silly. Who does this hurt? Nobody needs their AR or AK. And if it's like every ban instituted before, it will simply mean you won't be able to buy them.

Now, I think the law is silly and pointless. But earth shattering? Not even close. Hunters don't need these guns. There are better guns out there for self defense.

But this is what happens when reasonable people do not work with those who want gun regulations. Pointless regulations like this are pushed while the real problems aren't addressed. I would bet that if she were honest, Clinton even understands this rule wouldn't accomplish much. But it's about all she can hope to do and even this is unlikely in this climate.

 

[Underhill]

Not to take the thread off-topic, but is there any indication where this image of her stems from? Up in Canada, we're all just baffled.

It started with Whitewater. I have no idea if anything unethical happened there, but the investigation turned into a witch hunt which led to Bill's lie and subsequent impeachment. On top of this you have the mountains of right wing smear sites that talk about the Clintons dead colleagues and tries to paint a picture of the Clintons rubbing these people out. Add in the dozens of investigations into Benghazi and emails, all of which found nothing actionable but have been plastered on these right wing sites and news channels... you have a recipe for conspiracy nonsense.

The thing is, if Hillary is half as bad as the right makes her out, she would need to be the most brilliant criminal mastermind in history to pull it off without any evidence.

 

[esmith]

So she wants to ban assault weapons. Arguing semantics is silly. Who does this hurt? Nobody needs their AR or AK. And if it's like every ban instituted before, it will simply mean you won't be able to buy them.

Now, I think the law is silly and pointless. But earth shattering? Not even close. Hunters don't need these guns. There are better guns out there for self defense.

But this is what happens when reasonable people do not work with those who want gun regulations. Pointless regulations like this are pushed while the real problems aren't addressed. I would bet that if she were honest, Clinton even understands this rule wouldn't accomplish much. But it's about all she can hope to do and even this is unlikely in this climate.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I think you are completely off-base with what you say.
Why don't I need my S&W M&P15? It is an excellent weapon for target shooting, varmint shooting, competition, and I enjoy shooting it.
No, I don't use it for self-defense. That's what my G19, G43, SR45, SP101, or 870 is for. Could I use it for self-defense? Yes, but it takes awhile to get it out of the safe and it doesn't have the stopping power I want.
Clinton might be playing to the anti-gun crowd and then again she may not be. But as most of the anti-gun crowd have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms, and when politicians have to get elected they have a tendency to play to their base.

 

[idav]

Wouldn't that depend on the gun control law?

How does a law controlling speech hurt anyone?

Not really but a question that should be asked is if reasonable gun control is against the second amendment.

Sueing the media makes it harder to get the truth out when it matters. Could be a question about the possibility that media can abuse the privilege. However freedom of speech is supposed to allow opinion but doesn't have to include slander.

 

[esmith]

Not offering an opinion, asking yours. How do some gun control laws hurt? I notice you keep ducking this question. Why? It should be easy to explain how a reasonable gun control law harms Americans.

You say that I'm ducking the question. However, I have always said the present laws on the books (if they were rigidly enforces) are all we need.
So what gun-control laws are you referring to when you say " How do some gun control laws hurt"? Should be easy for you to answer that and then I will attempt to answer it.

 

[Wirey]

You say that I'm ducking the question. However, I have always said the present laws on the books (if they were rigidly enforces) are all we need.
So what gun-control laws are you referring to when you say " How do some gun control laws hurt"? Should be easy for you to answer that and then I will attempt to answer it.

What if there was a law that said you must have a clean criminal background for five years, pass a mental competency test (nothing dramatic) and couldn't possess semi or fully automatic weapons other than pistols? Also, the penalty for selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine. What would be the harm?

 

[Underhill]

You are entitled to your opinion. However, I think you are completely off-base with what you say.
Why don't I need my S&W M&P15? It is an excellent weapon for target shooting, varmint shooting, competition, and I enjoy shooting it.
No, I don't use it for self-defense. That's what my G19, G43, SR45, SP101, or 870 is for. Could I use it for self-defense? Yes, but it takes awhile to get it out of the safe and it doesn't have the stopping power I want.
Clinton might be playing to the anti-gun crowd and then again she may not be. But as most of the anti-gun crowd have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms, and when politicians have to get elected they have a tendency to play to their base.

I agree with you on both points. Note, I didn't say these guns are worthless. Only that their loss doesn't hurt anyone's ability to hunt or protect themselves.

And your last point is spot on. The problem is that as long as the pro gun crowd (you know, gun owners) keep playing this obstructionist game the only people in the room when these bills are being written are non gun owners. If the NRA were to get together with the anti gun crowd and talk about ideas that may actually help with the problems we face and not place an undue burden on gun owners, we might see real progress instead of these kinds of meaningless annoying laws.

 

[metis]

There's a vast difference between being anti-gun versus being anti-some guns, but so many on the right love to conflate the two, and Trump is one of them.

 

[oldbadger]

What if there was a law that said you must have a clean criminal background for five years, pass a mental competency test (nothing dramatic) and couldn't possess semi or fully automatic weapons other than pistols? Also, the penalty for selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine. What would be the harm?

Your good reason just won't make sense to some US folks.

 

[Underhill]

What if there was a law that said you must have a clean criminal background for five years, pass a mental competency test (nothing dramatic) and couldn't possess semi or fully automatic weapons other than pistols? Also, the penalty for selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine. What would be the harm?

A lot of us own semi automatic rifles for hunting use. And these guns are statistically almost never used in crimes.

The problem is this. A gun like the Browning BAR 30 06 is a great hunting rifle and virtually never used for crimes. An AR-10 is functionally very similar. But its pistol grip and design makes it look like a military weapon (and it essentially is minus the automatic capability).

Hillary wants to ban the AR but keep the BAR legal. This makes no real sense to anyone who understands but AR's look scary and do occasionally get used in gang warfare and in shootings (no where near as often as pistols but that's beside the point). But functionally both guns put the same hole in something and have similar capabilities. The only difference is the capability to put a large capacity magazine on the AR.

 

[metis]

Maybe the only guns allowed should be single-shot muzzle loaders, much like the most advanced guns were when the founding fathers decided upon passing the 2nd Amendment. With good hunters, I'm sure that would be fine, but the lousy hunters surely wouldn't go for this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How does a gun control law hurt?

People get concerned about "slippery slopes" regulation of gun ownership may, or may not open various venues for clamping down on everything/ anything deemed dangerous or lethal in the future. While regulation may not be a bad thing in an immediate sense, there could be unforseen repercussions in the future through expansion efforts of existing laws paving the way for increasingly draconian legal measures to stifle and control whatever an authority sees fit to in its eyes.

 

[Wirey]

A lot of us own semi automatic rifles for hunting use. And these guns are statistically almost never used in crimes.

The problem is this. A gun like the Browning BAR 30 06 is a great hunting rifle and virtually never used for crimes. An AR-10 is functionally very similar. But its pistol grip and design makes it look like a military weapon (and it essentially is minus the automatic capability).

Hillary wants to ban the AR but keep the BAR legal. This makes no real sense to anyone who understands but AR's look scary and do occasionally get used in gang warfare and in shootings (no where near as often as pistols but that's beside the point). But functionally both guns put the same hole in something and have similar capabilities. The only difference is the capability to put a large capacity magazine on the AR.

I hunted and ran a trap line. A semi is a convenience, not a necessity. Outlawing them would have zero effect on hunters. Well, on the ones who can aim the first shot anyway.

 

[tytlyf]

As post #7 notes, with link to HRC website, she clearly wants to ban some guns (take their guns away). I think that's fairly direct evidence.

Here's the part where you get to stipulate what that assertion by you "really meant."

That's not a violation of the 2A. The 2A states you have the right to bear arms. What part of 'well regulated' don't people understand?
You can still buy guns.

 

[Adramelek]

The First and Second Amendments are of equal importance by way of their own principles;

First Amendment of the Constitution
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Second Amendment of the Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If any president or strongly influential political movement of the US tries to infringe upon any of these rights, it is revolution time!! And I bet there are some folks who believe that the time has come, or is well on its way.

 

[Acim]

Not really but a question that should be asked is if reasonable gun control is against the second amendment.

Sueing the media makes it harder to get the truth out when it matters. Could be a question about the possibility that media can abuse the privilege. However freedom of speech is supposed to allow opinion but doesn't have to include slander.

Would depend if Trump was suing all media. If Trump threatens to sue Fox News, are we even having this discussion? Does this thread then even exist?

Regarding the first inquiry, who determines what is "reasonable" gun control?

Given Hillary's assertions on her site: "assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities." - it would seem one could make the reasonable case that this would apply to all/most guns. That they do not belong on our streets and are in fact a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. But gotta start somewhere....

 

[Kuzcotopia]

5. And the worst: see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I think you meant to say "best" there.

I'll take that Australian plan any day in this country. . . But it's going to be baby steps.

It's funny. . . you're rattling off points here as if those are negatives. . . The average Anerican sees them as positives. Only a minority of people sees this as a problem.

Find a new hobby. Try stamp collecting.

 

[esmith]

What if there was a law that said you must have a clean criminal background for five years, pass a mental competency test (nothing dramatic) and couldn't possess semi or fully automatic weapons other than pistols? Also, the penalty for selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine. What would be the harm?

Point 1. you must have a clean criminal background for five year.
Who may not own a firearm:
Fugitives from justice
Illegal aliens
Unlawful users of certain drugs
Those committed to a mental institution
Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year
Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

What would you like to add to the list as a criminal background?

Point 2. pass a mental competency test
Maybe sounds good, but who is going to give the test and what is the criteria of being mentally competent? Do the persons administering the test or those writing the test have to pass a competency test to determine if they are unbiased.

Point 3 Couldn't possess a semi-automatic or automatic weapon except for pistols?
You do know that possession of automatic weapons are only legal with a "special" license?
What is the differentiation, in your mind, between a semi-automatic pistol and semi-automatic rifles or shotguns. Oh by the way the below is a Steyr Tactical Machine Pistol. You ok with that. Seems you need a little better understanding of firearms.

Point 4. selling a weapon to someone in those circumstances without checking would result in a hefty fine
I assume you mean all of your above points. Well there are laws on the books that cover many of your points. However, we have not come to a conclusion about the "wording" of your points.