Hillary Clinton Plans Executive Action to Exceed Obama on Gun Control

Well folks look no further than this thread on why gun owners are have been getting their asses handed to them.
Because some of us don't want the President to be an egotistical loudmouth with no policy suggestions? How statist of us, eh?
 
Another +1. I usually respect folks who vote their conscience even if that means throwing away a vote on a third party candidate with zero chance of even being a blip on the electoral radar. But not this time, the stakes are too high, Hitlery must be kept out of the WH at all costs. I don't care if it's Genghis Kahn or Kahn from Star Trek running against her, I will vote for whomever has the best shot at defeating her, she is that evil. I know, I know, in deep blue MA Hitlery will most likely win but what if it is close. What if it all comes down to a close race in MA but she wins by a single vote and it was your vote for third party candidate X or your non vote that gave her the WH. Ask yourself, do you want to live with that on your head? Is Trump really worse than her?

Yes, the stakes are too high this time. The writing is on the wall.
 
I support third party candidates. I am not fond of the GOP but simply voting third party is not going to magically make a third party viable. We need to reform the whole election mess so third and fourth and fifth parties have a level playing field. That is the only way real change and reform will happen. In the meantime we need to make the best of the situation at hand.
 
I would say "Ha, Hillary can issue these executive actions, but SCOTUS will strike them down as unconstitutional", but Hillary will get to appoint a justice, and whatever she does will be rubber stamped. It doesn't matter if federal registration and universal background checks are unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if the executive doesn't have the power to do it - Hillary can and will run rough shod over everything.

You guys can fanboy over Trump, but I do not like his chances to get elected, nevermind discussing whether or not he would be any better.
 
Right now Trump is all we got.
We may not know what we're getting with the Donald, but we sure as hell know what we're getting with Shrillary.
I'll take my chances with the Donald, at least he himself carries, I wouldn't overlook that.
 
voting third party is not going to magically make a third party viable

Viability is actually directly tied to Number of votes, but don't let that get in the way of your cognitive dissonance. This logic is truly alarming from GOP apologists. More votes doesn't mean more viable? Are you kidding me?
 
Viability is actually directly tied to Number of votes, but don't let that get in the way of your cognitive dissonance. This logic is truly alarming from GOP apologists. More votes doesn't mean more viable? Are you kidding me?

There is no such thing as more viable, something is viable or it is not. In this election there are only two viable candidates, Hitlery and Trump. If you chose to vote third party you are throwing your vote away and that is a fact. It is your prerogative and I actually do respect the sentiment. I have voted third party in the past but I am not willing to do it this time around. I am voting my conscience because my conscience says that a one in a million chance that my vote to keep the mother of all evil out of the WH might count is better than a 1 in a trillion chance that Gary Johnson will win.
 
Like they say let a liberal have a nickel and the next thing they will go after your wallet.
 
Okay, Then vote third party and help split the vote, so that what you claim you don't want happens.
Don't vote at all which means that you don't value your vote. Or
You can come with the usual excuse of "My vote doesn't matter anyway", and not vote.
No matter which one you take you are assisting in enabling the Communists in taking over this country.

Agree. And even if Trump does blow up the world, I'd rather die quickly than this slow, exhausting, usually infuriating, often nauseating, liberal agenda death.
 
It seems this discussion on whether to hold your nose and vote Trump is all over the internet.

Trump is a Northeast moderate and maybe too liberal for some. He believes in tightening the boarders and the 2A. Hillary is a transplant or even better a carpetbagger. The Clintons moved to NY because she was "given" the role of US Senator. Hillary will say or be what ever she needs to. Her goal is to be president, period. She was a fair Senator (from what I have heard), a terrible Secretary of State and overall a lying socialist.

Folks, I have said I didn't like any of the candidates but I will vote for Trump because anything else you do whether it is stay home or vote for a 3rd party will only help Hillary win. I know Hillary will win MA but maybe some Bernie voters will stay home or vote 3rd party, so let's make a good showing and not make it quite as easy on Hillary.

ANYBODY BUT HILLARY....this is our mantra, or should be.
 
You might as well turn your guns in when you vote for Mr. "None of the Above" at the polling booth because Mr. "None of the Above" will not be appointing anyone to SCOTUS.

And if you took a gander at the numbers I posted you'd see that it doesn't matter which candidate I choose at the polling booth, the state is overwhelmingly voting D. Unless you can convince ~350,000 people to switch parties this state will remain Blue.

Using the 2012 election as an example, had I voted "None of the Above" Obucko would have won 1,900,000 to 1,179,999 (Mittens) to 30,000 (Johnson) to 20,000 (Stein) to 1 (None of the Above).

After voting for someone I hated less than his opponent in 2012 I swore I'd vote my conscience in future elections. No matter what it's the same as turning in a blank ballot in this state.
 
Okay, Then vote third party and help split the vote, so that what you claim you don't want happens.
Don't vote at all which means that you don't value your vote. Or
You can come with the usual excuse of "My vote doesn't matter anyway", and not vote.
No matter which one you take you are assisting in enabling the Communists in taking over this country.

QFTMFT!!
 
You guys have fun pretending that Dump is a half-decent candidate just because he's not quite as horrible as the other choice. I've done that before but I won't do it again. Vote for someone who believes in freedom (third party) or someone who doesn't (dem or rep) - there's really no in-between right now. This is especially true in MA where we all know Killary will win by a landslide.

Because some of us don't want the President to be an egotistical loudmouth with no policy suggestions? How statist of us, eh?

This!
 
Like I said, the supply of powder and primers could dry up for at least a year once she is elected.
 
You mean that you'd actually vote for Hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. NFW. Just the same as I didn't vote for Bl-Obama or fu(kin Mittens in 2012.

BTW - holding my nose and voting for Bush (twice) helped us get here.
 
Last edited:
And if you took a gander at the numbers I posted you'd see that it doesn't matter which candidate I choose at the polling booth, the state is overwhelmingly voting D. Unless you can convince ~350,000 people to switch parties this state will remain Blue.

Using the 2012 election as an example, had I voted "None of the Above" Obucko would have won 1,900,000 to 1,179,999 (Mittens) to 30,000 (Johnson) to 20,000 (Stein) to 1 (None of the Above).

After voting for someone I hated less than his opponent in 2012 I swore I'd vote my conscience in future elections. No matter what it's the same as turning in a blank ballot in this state.


Actually, even though the 2012 numbers are meaningless for the 2016 election, I did take "a gander" at them. This is a much different election cycle and the majority of voters in all parties are angry with the establishment candidates.

As of 2/20/16, this is what the party breakdown numbers are in MA:

Dems: 1.49 million
Reps: 468,000
Unenrolled: 2.28 million

So far in the national primaries, DEM votes are down significantly over 2012, while Reps voters have increased significantly. If this represents what the general election results will look like, then with 2.28 million undeclared voters in MA, there are certainly plenty of voters to swing the MA election away from HRC. Will it happen? We will know after the election, unless HRC is indicted before then.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleenrollmentstats/enrollmentstats.htm
 
* extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks,
* placing more regulations on sales at gun shows and guns sold online,
* allowing crime victims to sue gun manufacturers and gun sellers,
* expanding the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships–then using that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.
* Also, on October 16 Clinton said the Australian gun ban was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the U.S.

Obviously the SCOTUS pick(s) are the key 2A issue at stake in electing Hillary, but I'm curious which of these changes mentioned above she can actually accomplish via Executive Order/Action?
 
Obviously the SCOTUS pick(s) are the key 2A issue at stake in electing Hillary, but I'm curious which of these changes mentioned above she can actually accomplish via Executive Order/Action?
None of the above. If these were doable, Obama would have included them in his last round of Executive Actions.
 
* extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks,
* placing more regulations on sales at gun shows and guns sold online,
* allowing crime victims to sue gun manufacturers and gun sellers,
* expanding the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships–then using that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.
* Also, on October 16 Clinton said the Australian gun ban was “worth looking at” for gun policy in the U.S.

Obviously the SCOTUS pick(s) are the key 2A issue at stake in electing Hillary, but I'm curious which of these changes mentioned above she can actually accomplish via Executive Order/Action?

FWIW I just thought I'd also remind all who care to pay attention that the POTUS doesn't just appoint SCOTUS justices, but also appoints justices at the federal appellate and district levels...
 
None of the above. If these were doable, Obama would have included them in his last round of Executive Actions.
That's kinda what I was thinking. If he could have done more, he would have done more. Not that Hillary won't try to nibble around the edges, but the edges of executive power are pretty much reached at this point. All the important decisions will be made in the courts (district, appellate, and SCOTUS... good point, Whut).
 
Back
Top Bottom