Utah Guns Forum banner

HRC's plans for guns in the US

8K views 12 replies 5 participants last post by  quychang 
#1 ·
Six Parts of Hillary Clinton's Plan to Disarm Citizens

The short version:
Hillary Clinton is making a war on personal gun ownership a central part of her campaign for the White House. Here are six of the most outrageous aspects of her effort to incrementally disarm American citizens.

1. Consider Australian-style gun ban
2. Allow Crime Victims To Sue Gun Manufacturers
3. Allow Crime Victims to Sue Gun Sellers
4. Replace Instant Background Checks With Indefinite Background Checks
5. Outlaw Private Gun Sales
6. Add No-Fly List to Background Che
 
#2 ·
I highly suspect she's pandering to her base, and won't be able to implement most of these. But the fact is that if she even gets ONE through depending on the one, it would be at least highly inconvenient ranging to disastrous.

Which in my opinion means it behooves us to do everything possible to keep it from happening. The two things I can see that are still viable is... do everything we still can to derail her nomination and get Bernie Sanders as candidate.I have severe reservations about him as well, but he's definitely better on gun issues. The second item is to unite behind Trump and push him through to the office. This means no writing in of third parties, no sitting out of the election in disgust, And doing everything we can to insure he wins the election. A wasted vote, as in cast for libertarian, or mickey mouse, or whoever your flavor of the day, strikes me in my mind as at the very least half a vote for Clinton.

I don't see any other viable options. As I heard on the Doug Wrong show, he was talking to the former head of the Hinkley Institute, it's a lot like the choice between being shot, or poisoned. I'll take the slow poison, over the bullet. There is some hope of an antidote with poison, A well placed bullet and it's game over. In both cases, the president is restrained from a lot of things by Congress. So we need to make sure control of the Congress stays in Republican hands. We can't do that by sitting out the election.

I don't like Trump. Chances are, given the choice, I will for the first time in my memory vote Democrat, as long as it's not Clinton. Given a choice between two poisons, I'll try the one that I think is less likely to kill me.

I see absolutely nothing to like or admire about Mrs. Clinton. I detest her in the worst possible way. If we, through in action, or not being unified under the opposition, we deserve what we're going to get. And quite frankly it scares me to death, because I don't think our base has the political will to push him into office. And in many ways I don't blame them, and understand.

I really welcome dissenting opinions. If someone can convince me of even one redeeming quality for Clinton, I might be be able to hold my nose and vote for her. But frankly I don't see it happening.

Thanks for reading my long winded opinion. If there are answers folks, please convince me.

Mel
 
#3 ·
quychang said:
In both cases, the president is restrained from a lot of things by Congress. So we need to make sure control of the Congress stays in Republican hands. We can't do that by sitting out the election.
This is another case where the conventional wisdom could be wrong, but I don't think Trump's reality distortion field/persuasion applies down-ballot, so it could be true. Our country tends to prefer divided government, so I don't think President Trump will have a Republican congress for long, if at all.

quychang said:
I don't like Trump. Chances are, given the choice, I will for the first time in my memory vote Democrat, as long as it's not Clinton. Given a choice between two poisons, I'll try the one that I think is less likely to kill me.
Bernie on gun control is scary, too. But given the likelihood of Republican congress with Clinton or Bernie in the oval office, I'm not sure which is worse. I'm not able to convince myself that the RINOs in congress will grow a backbone, and stand up to a progressive/socialist President from either party.
 
#4 ·
manithree said:
quychang said:
In both cases, the president is restrained from a lot of things by Congress. So we need to make sure control of the Congress stays in Republican hands. We can't do that by sitting out the election.
This is another case where the conventional wisdom could be wrong, but I don't think Trump's reality distortion field/persuasion applies down-ballot, so it could be true. Our country tends to prefer divided government, so I don't think President Trump will have a Republican congress for long, if at all.

quychang said:
I don't like Trump. Chances are, given the choice, I will for the first time in my memory vote Democrat, as long as it's not Clinton. Given a choice between two poisons, I'll try the one that I think is less likely to kill me.
Bernie on gun control is scary, too. But given the likelihood of Republican congress with Clinton or Bernie in the oval office, I'm not sure which is worse. I'm not able to convince myself that the RINOs in congress will grow a backbone, and stand up to a progressive/socialist President from either party.
Good points Manithree. And I will give both due consideration. While it's true that Hillary "probably" will have a republican congress, and hence not be much if any more effective that Obama, she still scares me more than all the rest. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else how to vote, but my feeling is that a vote for anyone but the major republican candidates is at least a half vote for Hillary. I can not in good conscience do that. Poisoned or shot. Take your pick. Or move to Ecuador for 4-8 years. That gets you out of the line of fire, but it doesn't solve the problem. If there is a solution

Mel
 
#5 ·
Here in Utah, I think it is the perfect cycle to vote third-party. Based off polls around the caucus, Trump doesn't have much more support than Hillary and the right third party candidate could potentially have a path to winning. Even if half of Romney's votes went to this hypothetical candidate and Hillary got a share equal to Obama's in 2012, it still wouldn't give her any help in reaching 270. Worst-case scenario is that Trump and Hillary both fall short of 270 and it goes to the Republican-controlled House. On the benefit side: it would send an extremely loud message to see a third-party win a state, even one with only 6 electoral votes.
 
#6 ·
DiscoLives4ever said:
Here in Utah, I think it is the perfect cycle to vote third-party. Based off polls around the caucus, Trump doesn't have much more support than Hillary and the right third party candidate could potentially have a path to winning. Even if half of Romney's votes went to this hypothetical candidate and Hillary got a share equal to Obama's in 2012, it still wouldn't give her any help in reaching 270. Worst-case scenario is that Trump and Hillary both fall short of 270 and it goes to the Republican-controlled House. On the benefit side: it would send an extremely loud message to see a third-party win a state, even one with only 6 electoral votes.
I guess my fear is that it will be a very tight race and that Hillary might win by as few as two or three electoral votes. If that many of Utah's six were to go to a third party and we conceivably could have made the difference between Trump or Hillary winning. Trump is a wild card, to be sure, but I believe Hillary would be a disaster for the country. I'm not willing to take a chance of our electoral votes being the difference. So, if that's the ticket...Trump vs. Clinton, I will hold my nose and vote for Trump. It's not a decision I've reached lightly, nor am I trying to persuade others to my way of thinking. But for me, I can only in good conscience vote for someone with a chance to beat Hillary.

Mel
 
#7 ·
I don't see Utah Republican's as whole going full Trump. He did not have that warm a welcome here and I think many would looking for a 3rd choice reguardless of who it is.
 
#8 ·
quychang said:
DiscoLives4ever said:
Here in Utah, I think it is the perfect cycle to vote third-party. Based off polls around the caucus, Trump doesn't have much more support than Hillary and the right third party candidate could potentially have a path to winning. Even if half of Romney's votes went to this hypothetical candidate and Hillary got a share equal to Obama's in 2012, it still wouldn't give her any help in reaching 270. Worst-case scenario is that Trump and Hillary both fall short of 270 and it goes to the Republican-controlled House. On the benefit side: it would send an extremely loud message to see a third-party win a state, even one with only 6 electoral votes.
I guess my fear is that it will be a very tight race and that Hillary might win by as few as two or three electoral votes. If that many of Utah's six were to go to a third party and we conceivably could have made the difference between Trump or Hillary winning. Trump is a wild card, to be sure, but I believe Hillary would be a disaster for the country. I'm not willing to take a chance of our electoral votes being the difference. So, if that's the ticket...Trump vs. Clinton, I will hold my nose and vote for Trump. It's not a decision I've reached lightly, nor am I trying to persuade others to my way of thinking. But for me, I can only in good conscience vote for someone with a chance to beat Hillary.

Mel
Hilary only becomes President if she gets a MAJORITY of electoral votes, not a plurality. Even if she has 267, Trump has 260, and somebody else has 11 then it goes to the House of Representatives. Unless you expect Hillary to win the state of Utah (keeping in mind that a 50-50 split of Romney voters going to Trump and a third-party would still not be enough for her to win) then there is no way it will help her Electoral-y. The absolute worst-case scenario would be Hillary 268, Trump 264, third-party with 6 from Utah and it goes to the house.

The ONLY downside is that the House of Reps might possibly lose their mind and put in Clinton (which I just cannot imagine them ever doing, no matter how much they dislike Trump), and the potential upside is Utah sending a message and having a real impact on national politics for the first time in decades.
 
#9 ·
DiscoLives4ever said:
Hilary only becomes President if she gets a MAJORITY of electoral votes, not a plurality. Even if she has 267, Trump has 260, and somebody else has 11 then it goes to the House of Representatives. Unless you expect Hillary to win the state of Utah (keeping in mind that a 50-50 split of Romney voters going to Trump and a third-party would still not be enough for her to win) then there is no way it will help her Electoral-y. The absolute worst-case scenario would be Hillary 268, Trump 264, third-party with 6 from Utah and it goes to the house.

The ONLY downside is that the House of Reps might possibly lose their mind and put in Clinton (which I just cannot imagine them ever doing, no matter how much they dislike Trump), and the potential upside is Utah sending a message and having a real impact on national politics for the first time in decades.
The wildcard of bringing the Senate into play doesn't thrill me either. Hillary is way more of a political insider than any of the candidates remaining. I think the only figure they fear more than Trump, is Bernie Sanders. For many of the same reasons. They can't trust either of them to walk the party line, and the last thing they want is change Hillary would be most likely to maintain the status quo. After much research, I've come to the conclusion that I can't support either one of them, they are both monsters, and choosing whether to vote for King Kong or Godzilla doesn't much appeal to me. If those are my choices, I'll probably join you in putting my vote in a third party. Probably Libertarian, possibly independent. This will be, by far, the worst set of candidates to choose from in my lifetime.

Mel
 
#10 ·
quychang said:
DiscoLives4ever said:
Hilary only becomes President if she gets a MAJORITY of electoral votes, not a plurality. Even if she has 267, Trump has 260, and somebody else has 11 then it goes to the House of Representatives. Unless you expect Hillary to win the state of Utah (keeping in mind that a 50-50 split of Romney voters going to Trump and a third-party would still not be enough for her to win) then there is no way it will help her Electoral-y. The absolute worst-case scenario would be Hillary 268, Trump 264, third-party with 6 from Utah and it goes to the house.

The ONLY downside is that the House of Reps might possibly lose their mind and put in Clinton (which I just cannot imagine them ever doing, no matter how much they dislike Trump), and the potential upside is Utah sending a message and having a real impact on national politics for the first time in decades.
The wildcard of bringing the Senate into play doesn't thrill me either. Hillary is way more of a political insider than any of the candidates remaining. I think the only figure they fear more than Trump, is Bernie Sanders. For many of the same reasons. They can't trust either of them to walk the party line, and the last thing they want is change Hillary would be most likely to maintain the status quo. After much research, I've come to the conclusion that I can't support either one of them, they are both monsters, and choosing whether to vote for King Kong or Godzilla doesn't much appeal to me. If those are my choices, I'll probably join you in putting my vote in a third party. Probably Libertarian, possibly independent. This will be, by far, the worst set of candidates to choose from in my lifetime.

Mel
Just to clarify, it would be bringing the House in to play, not the Senate. Furthermore, it goes 1 vote per state delegation in the House (California and Utah have an equal voice, and IIRC around 30 states have solidly R delegations) and only the top 3 candidates are eligible.
 
#11 ·
DiscoLives4ever said:
Just to clarify, it would be bringing the House in to play, not the Senate. Furthermore, it goes 1 vote per state delegation in the House (California and Utah have an equal voice, and IIRC around 30 states have solidly R delegations) and only the top 3 candidates are eligible.
Thanks for clarifying, I should have spoken more clearly. That explanation makes the Congressional option so very much worse. You're basically telling me that if it goes to the House, Trump will likely be chosen. To clarify my standing, I don't want Hillary by only a very small margin over how much I don't want Trump. I am now officially in a quandary. I don't really want to come across as solidly a Bernie Sanders supporter either, because I do have reservations about him as well. Those reservations are simply less strong that the ones I have about Clinton/Trump. It looks like I have to wait until much closer to the election to decide. If it's looks like there's a strong probability that it will go to Congress, and there is a viable third party...for instance a huge grass roots campaign to write in Bernie, Mitt or someone that I can support who hasn't come forward, well then I'll probably go for the third option. But of course it's way too early to discern even the possibility much less the likelihood of that happening. I do see it as a possible viable alternative however. Enough people are sick of the established practices that they do want an outsider. Trump appeals to that base, though not strongly enough to be a guaranteed win, and I'm not convinced that just because he isn't a politician that he's not part of the establishment way of thinking. He stands to lose more than he stands to gain by implementing real change.

Mel
 
#12 ·
quychang said:
DiscoLives4ever said:
Just to clarify, it would be bringing the House in to play, not the Senate. Furthermore, it goes 1 vote per state delegation in the House (California and Utah have an equal voice, and IIRC around 30 states have solidly R delegations) and only the top 3 candidates are eligible.
Thanks for clarifying, I should have spoken more clearly. That explanation makes the Congressional option so very much worse. You're basically telling me that if it goes to the House, Trump will likely be chosen. To clarify my standing, I don't want Hillary by only a very small margin over how much I don't want Trump. I am now officially in a quandary. I don't really want to come across as solidly a Bernie Sanders supporter either, because I do have reservations about him as well. Those reservations are simply less strong that the ones I have about Clinton/Trump. It looks like I have to wait until much closer to the election to decide. If it's looks like there's a strong probability that it will go to Congress, and there is a viable third party...for instance a huge grass roots campaign to write in Bernie, Mitt or someone that I can support who hasn't come forward, well then I'll probably go for the third option. But of course it's way too early to discern even the possibility much less the likelihood of that happening. I do see it as a possible viable alternative however. Enough people are sick of the established practices that they do want an outsider. Trump appeals to that base, though not strongly enough to be a guaranteed win, and I'm not convinced that just because he isn't a politician that he's not part of the establishment way of thinking. He stands to lose more than he stands to gain by implementing real change.

Mel
That's fine. My point is fairly simple:

Voting third-party in Utah this year has virtually no chance of causing a worse outcome than the traditional "lesser of two evils" option, but has potential to have a huge impact, especially so if the state DOES manage to give it's electors to a third-party.
 
#13 ·
DiscoLives4ever said:
That's fine. My point is fairly simple:

Voting third-party in Utah this year has virtually no chance of causing a worse outcome than the traditional "lesser of two evils" option, but has potential to have a huge impact, especially so if the state DOES manage to give it's electors to a third-party.
While I actually agree with you, my point is instead of voting third party, if the state writes in Bernie Sanders and he carries the state, we could be part of the movement that makes him one of the three candidates that Congress has to choose from if neither of the mainstream candidates reach the magic number. If that were the case we could accomplish two things. Not be part of electing one of the two real monsters in the race, and be part of the movement that pushes a true progressive candidate into the third spot. Now that said, I'm not confident that even if he gets a plurality of the delegates that the establishment machine would pick him out of the three. The establishment is afraid of him, probably with good reason, but can you imagine the ground swell of discontent if he won both the popular vote and the most delegates and Congress still chose Hillary over him?

Mel
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top