Hillary Pushes Gun Control: “We Have To Reign In” Support for Second Amendment Rights…

[PiratePast40]

I don't know....Hilliary seems to be a pretty smart lady & not hard on the eyes either. The experience that she's gained while directing the State Department will be of great value to her in leading our nation forward.

Dude, you made me throw up in my mouth a little there!

 

[robertg]

If you don't agree with Hillary you are a sexist.

 

[Stomper]

The only thing she should "reign in" is the shrillness of her voice, and the size of her thighs.

 

[Jamie6.5]

If you don't agree with Hillary you are a sexist.

^^ There it is! ^^

Kudos to the man with the foresight to see the future of politics.
If you don't have something to be butthurt about, you ain't electable as a democrat.

Have the last six years worth of "racism" claims taught us nothing?

 

[JRuby]

The question I would ask is who the republican party plans to run against her. Are there any real contenders out there that public can identify with?

 

[gaijinsamurai]

The question I would ask is who the republican party plans to run against her. Are there any real contenders out there that public can identify with?

The problem is that just about any Republican who is electable gets squeezed out early in the GOP primaries, by the extremists who accuse them of being "RINOs" if they believe in Separation of Church and State, etc....and I'm willing to bet that support for Cliven Bundy will be a litmus test for GOP hopefuls in 2016 too.....one will probably have to call for public hangings of BLM employees to get the electoral votes of Republicans in some areas.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The question I would ask is who the republican party plans to run against her. Are there any real contenders out there that public can identify with?

There ya go JG, start building your portfolio of justification for voting for her early.
If you read the history of hillary/billary written outside of the media-matters approved material, you'll vote for anyone BUT hillary.

This woman is as close to being a fascist as any former office holder in our history.
She had to move to the most clinton-friendly city in the U.S. to get elected to the Senate, and has a history of turning control over to her corporate sponsors, to let them have their way.
Wal-Mart and Tyson come to mind, and the fact that her senate-seat and the stock exchange are both in NY is no coincidence.

Her "efforts" at diplomacy have left our middle-east policy in tatters, and the region is a mess. She consistently weakened our position and the botched Benghazi debacle and cover-up are just the tip of the iceberg.

She has a history of unethical dealings both inside and outside of government and the legal profession.
There is no doubt in my mind she would be worse for the country and gun owners than even the corrupt and incompetent idiot we have now.

 

[JRuby]

I am not disagreeing on your points Jamie - I asked an honest question. You already start personal attacks - isnt that a liberal talking point.

 

[Sstrand]

JRuby
I agree with you . . .The republicans have a bad, perhaps electorally fatal habit of allowing the mainstream media (liberals all) to select the party's candidates . . . Remember McCain!!!

Sheldon

 

[gaijinsamurai]

o

There ya go JG, start building your portfolio of justification for voting for her early.
If you read the history of hillary/billary written outside of the media-matters approved material, you'll vote for anyone BUT hillary.

This woman is as close to being a fascist as any former office holder in our history.
She had to move to the most clinton-friendly city in the U.S. to get elected to the Senate, and has a history of turning control over to her corporate sponsors, to let them have their way.
Wal-Mart and Tyson come to mind, and the fact that her senate-seat and the stock exchange are both in NY is no coincidence.

Her "efforts" at diplomacy have left our middle-east policy in tatters, and the region is a mess. She consistently weakened our position and the botched Benghazi debacle and cover-up are just the tip of the iceberg.

She has a history of unethical dealings both inside and outside of government and the legal profession.
There is no doubt in my mind she would be worse for the country and gun owners than even the corrupt and incompetent idiot we have now.

I agree with what you're saying, Jamie. But I don't think JG was trying to show any support for her. I believe he was merely pointing out the obvious: She is a bonafide threat to our freedoms, because she appears to be the only potential candidate at this time, who seems to be electable. Not by me, you, or even JG Ruby, but the majority of voters who would gladly exchange their freedoms for the illusion of safety and security.

I think you misinterpreted JG Ruby's post, or maybe you have an ax to grind with him.....

 

[Martini_Up]

republicans during primaries: "people need more of the fruits of their labors"

they then go to the general election and compete with a democrat saying: "rich people need to give you your fair share of the fruit"

to the simple mind, what sounds better? working for fruit or getting it free???

 

[Jamie6.5]

I am not disagreeing on your points Jamie - I asked an honest question. You already start personal attacks - isnt that a liberal talking point.

When you, the media and the idiotic American voters start concentrating on who would govern the best instead of of who looks and sounds the best on the campaign trail, we can have a sensible conversation about politics JG.

You had little or no defense of obama and his policies in 2012, and spent every discussion on this forum attacking Mitt Romney, usually for things he didn't even do.
So don't get all high and mighty with me for adopting your tactic. Especially this early in the game that will be 2016. At least my assertions are based in facts.

If hillary was any good at governing, foreign policy, fiscal policy and adhering to the constitution, the leftists in the media wouldn't be starting this early building the case for her as president.
But they know if the get the narrative of "but who else is there?" started early enough, they can and will sell her based on the matter being settled. I saw/see your post as contributing to that.

Besides, the dems are about to get their asses handed to them in 2014 over the mess we are, and have been buried in for the last 6 years.
Hitlary in 2016 is just the current distraction.

Conservatives and libertarians need to get control of the Senate this year. Dems are already pushing Ginsburg to retire from the SCOTUS so they can be assured of getting obama's choice of replacement approved.
http://www.commdiginews.com/politic...wn-pressing-justice-ginsburg-to-retire-15183/

Keep your eyes on the task at hand folks. We'll deal with hitlary down the road, when it matters, and when the choice of her opponent is relevant.
In the meantime, don't undermine that.

 

[JRuby]

We are talking about the 2016 presidential elections - do we really need to go back 6 years - I see things differently than you do but that is for another discussion - please stay on topic and knock off the attacks.

 

[Jamie6.5]

We are talking about the 2016 presidential elections - do we really need to go back 6 years - I see things differently than you do but that is for another discussion - please stay on topic and knock off the attacks.

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. "
-Geo. Santayana

The history of hillary, her politics, her anti-gun advocacy, and her lack of ethics.

Your history of only "seeing" what you choose to.

I learned.

 

[JRuby]

So has this now turned into a personal attack instead of discussing the subject.

 

[Jamie6.5]

So has this now turned into a personal attack instead of discussing the subject.

So, who are you going to vote for in the 2016 Democratic primary JG?

 

[gaijinsamurai]

Well, he's the same person who accused me of being a "show-me type statist" because I questioned the accuracy of a video he posted......a video that was later taken off Youtube by the creator due to factual errors.

 

[JRuby]

So, who are you going to vote for in the 2016 Democratic primary JG?

I really don't know yet - I am not a supporter of Hillary however I don't even know who the candidates are for the Democratic party and to me that is the question.
Who are you voting for Jamie in the Republican Primary?

To me the bigger question who will be the republican presidential candidate versus the democratic candidate.
I feel that the Republicans could clear house in the next two to four years if they ever get their act straight and get some candidates out there that people can tie a name to and what they represent.
I will vote republican if they have a better candidate that represents my views not just on gun control but on many other issues. The 2nd amendment is very important but there are other rights and issues to me that are equally important.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I really don't know yet - I am not a supporter of Hillary however I don't even know who the candidates are for the Republicans party and to me that is the question.
Who are you voting for Jamie?

Well, since the Oregon primary system won't allow me to vote for anyone in the democrat party, as long as I'm not registered as a democrat,... It won't be hillary or anyone else with a "D" beside their name. I don't see myself making a party affiliation change to democrat anytime soon.
As a gun owner however, if I were a democrat, it wouldn't matter if mephistopheles was running against her, I still couldn't bring myself to vote for hillary.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Well, he's the same person who accused me of being a "show-me type statist" because I questioned the accuracy of a video he posted......a video that was later taken off Youtube by the creator due to factual errors.

You know, its one thing to not like being targeted in a post, but when you don't even understand the post itself, and/or why you were the target, it's pretty sad.
Mis-attributing things to a video seems to be a pattern in this country lately,....

The "show me statists" part was about people asking for Bundy's documentation of grazing rights inferred/promised/guaranteed 140 years ago, and had nothing to do with any video.