I don't think she'll need to go there. The moderators will bring it up for her and there is going to be a mountain of private money spent on ads that will just let Trump's own words speak for themselves.

Clinton also has a massive resume of working for issues she believes in. I think a lot of your baggage is manufactured, especially your ethics and sincerity. The reality is almost nobody on the planet has had the well funded opposition for decades trying to tear her down...and yet she's leading the race. That should say something.

I think if there was any chance the DNC would have promoted an alternative to Sanders. They have known for quite some time what the real situation is and what the risks are. I don't think it's a gamble, they simply don't think there was any significant wrong doing and no evidence has been revealed that contradicts this. Obama can't cover anything up...

Agree and then some. So are you going to vote for Gary Johnson?

If you like ...
Expensive shoddy healthcare , a leader who has no respect for the military and will keep the rules of engagement that keep our military at a disadvantage , hate gun ownership , have no issues with politicians that extort money for favors then vote for The Clintons !!
I'll take my chances with Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She was trying to address this 20 years ago but was blocked by the GOP. Can't blame her...

Why do you say this? Her record as Senator on vets issues and defense spending is pretty solid. Can you cite a single policy reference that alludes to her position on ROE's?

Hate? Here are her three top priorities from her website...

1) Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.

2) Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

3) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

Do you disagree with any of these?

Any evidence of any of this?

"I don't think she'll need to go there"

It's what liberals do. When you are wrong on just about everything, you go on the attack. Most conservatives just sit there and take it. Trump doesn't give them that luxury.

"Clinton also has a massive resume of working for issues she believes in"

What has she done, exactly? Besides making herself obscenely wealthy, that is?

"I think a lot of your baggage is manufactured"

We know you think that, bless your heart. "My husband didn't cheat on me, we are victims of a vast right-wing conspiracy!!"

"Shot at by sniper fire"

Manufactured? I don't believe so...

"and yet she's leading the race. That should say something."

It sure does. It says that if your name is Kennedy or Clinton, then liberals don't give a darn what you do.

some profound brilliance right there

Considering your post perhaps she's just stating the obvious, but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.

Do you have any evidence of this?

You love it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1099928]She was trying to address this 20 years ago but was blocked by the GOP. Can't blame her...

Of course not , and 7+ years Into the Obama administration and he has no personal responsibility either. She will continue and expand the failed policies of this administration.

Why do you say this? Her record as Senator on vets issues and defense spending is pretty solid. Can you cite a single policy reference that alludes to her position on ROE's?

She had no problem openly lying in the face parents receiving Their sons remains at an airport. What percentage of the military do you think agrees with me on this?


Hate? Here are her three top priorities from her website...

1) Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.



2) Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

The dealers are not breaking any laws . I know how important that is to you ,to walk the fine line , but they don't even do that .

Why would manufactures be responsible? I see a big donation from the lawyers . What a crock of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&

3) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

This is campaign bull#^&#^&#^&#^& . What are hero state and the obvious .


Do you disagree with any of these?


Any evidence of any of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1099937but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.[/QUOTE]

That reminds me, if you love illegal immigration or immigration from radicalized area of the world. Vote for the Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, Syed Rizwan Farook.

You mean that guy who got his guns illegally.....that guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The two rifles were purchased legally by his friend and transferred illegally. All the handguns were purchased legally by licensed dealers.

Your just being a pain in the ass now. The guns used in the terrorist attack were acquired illegally by the terrorist . Perhaps you would like to make the gun manufacture liable ? Whatever you do don't put the blame where it belongs .
The real fix is in making sure people like them do not get here I'm the first place .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They're still illegal...

If go fill a prescription for pain meds and then give them to my neighbor, the junkie....does that mean he got them legally?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, they were all bought legally from licensed dealers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ef3_story.html

I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety.

I'm going to moot you. There, you've been mooted.

Just like all the red flags Hillary waves
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right, you're a Trump fan now.

Is there something wrong with you? The weapons were purchased by Enrique Marquez. He then lent them to the shooters. That is illegal ,and he faces multiple charges for it .
A lot of illegally held guns were one time purchased legally..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Reread.

[QUOTE=spence;1100019]Reread.[/QUOTE

Reading that crap article from the Post was painful enough once but I read it again . It never mentions that the "legally "purchased fire arms used in the killings were not purchased by the shooters . It's more of an anti-gun article then a truthful one . I expected nothing else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"There is no limit on the amount of ammunition that U.S. citizens can buy and keep in their homes; " from your link https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ef3_story.html
Is FALSE information and simply not true, there is a limit, there might not be for all states, but here in the People's Republic of Mass. there is. These journalists should get things correct if they want to be taken seriously instead of trying to put fear into their articles.

Yep

just more dividing the country, anti gun bull

[QUOTE=buckman;1100020]Actually it does, you didn't read it did you?

What is the legal ammo possession limit in MA?

I don't think there is a limit .
You always want to make sure you have one more than you need and you never know how many you'll need .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slip doesn't agree.

Oh I agree with buckman
but as far as the law states,

here we are allowed 10,000 rounds of rimfire and 10,000 rounds of centerfire
if you are a reloader and have a need for a chitload of primers because they are sold in large quantity, then you can get a permit at your fire dept. for a few bucks and can have I think more than twice that amount of ammo. I am sure it is online at massgov someplace

Some people don't realize there is a limit, like reporters obviously.

Well I finally learned something from this thread .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You misread my question. Read it again, in the proper context. Amazing that someone who is as contextually attuned to and driven by CONTEXT would miss the context in which I asked my question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.
Detbuch reply: Do you have any evidence of this?

The context was your "want." Do you have any evidence that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment rights?

I was yanking your chain regarding your usual "do you have any evidence of this" type of rebuttal of someone's opinion of a politician formed and based on obviously circumstantial occurrences of past speeches, position papers, legislation, and repetitive talking points.

Can you provide any "evidence," circumstantial or positive, that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Silly question? It was meant to be as silly as your non sequiturs or often straw man statements, and then insisting on "evidence" for someone else's opinions.

On the other hand, you were attempting what you think is clarity when you said: "I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety."

To begin with, what you think is clearly the question is muddled again by your situational ethics. When it suited you, you backed up Nebe's assertion that your chances of being killed by a terror attack were very rare. But it suits you in this thread to posit that there's a clear threat to public safety if the feds threshold to deny rights is not raised (made sufficient) in order, among other things, to " Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists."

But what is clear to me, not only in this assertion by you, but in consistently similar statements by you in many other posts, is that the federal government simply doesn't have enough authority over the individuals in this country. Any occurrence which you conveniently deemed rare in another instance, now conveniently becomes a threat to public safety and should be cause to give the federal government the power to deny rights. So any contrived crisis must not be wasted if it can be used to expand the federal government's scope of power.

The federal government actually does have within its original constitutional scope of power the ability to severely limit the immigration of any category of groups into this country. But applying that power in order to mitigate the "threat to public safety" is not acceptable to you, or other Progressives who ply such bromides as "that is not us." It clearly has been us over most of our history, but Progressives, among the arsenal of anti-American and Constitution busting tactics, have in the importation of massive numbers of immigrants who provide no special qualities or abilities to strengthen what were actually once considered American values, found another way of actually watering down those values while at the same time creating a large populace of allies who will add to and strengthen the Progressive trajectory of central government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

I do not have actual "evidence" that you really do wish to limit our once unalienable rights and making those rights government rights rather than individual rights. But it just seems, clearly, that you do.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-...74c1490547666e
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . . no evidence that she intentionally or willingly broke the law. Does that mean she did, but she just didn't know that she did?

Wikipedia:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

But in Hillary's case, ignorance is merely bliss. Is being unaware that one is breaking a law a positive qualification for the reputedly highest office in the land? Is the lack of proper procedure which leads to the unintentional breaking of a federal law a qualification for the chief law enforcer of the land?

So there's no federal law, but Massachusetts -- perhaps the most liberal state in the nation -- caps you at a measly 20,000 rounds? The government tyranny here is beyond reproach!

Buck, what would you estimate as the most ammo you've ever had at one time?

This nitpick also doesn't do anything to dismiss the fact the weapons were all purchased legally at a FLL. This has been reported many times...

You're presuming a law was broken, this is still just speculation. I read a legal paper some months ago though that was very specific that intent is everything in this cases. If not they'd have to indict most of the CIA and DoD.

so what?

he also entered the country legally
had a job
but somewhere along the line was radicalized into the murderer he was

why is it important that the weapons were at some point in their existence purchased at an FFL?

Guns don't kill people, people do
Guns are inanimate objects just like a knife or a car
Why is everything a gun control issue?

because it is about control

I am not on the side of giving up control, I enjoy freedom

Romanian Hacker 'Guccifer' Just Gave Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9856196
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet the FBI found no evidence, he can't provide any evidence and he's regarded as 3rd rate hack...

He's just making crap up because he's in jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here is what I or anyone can store without a special permit if ya have a gun permit


•Not more than 10,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition
•Not more than 10,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition
•Not more than 5,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition
•Not more than 1000 primers
•Not more than 16 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 2 pounds of black powder

With a local permit from your local fire department

•Up to 30,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition*
•Up to 10,000 primers
•Not more than 48 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 5 pounds of black powder

So what is your point spence?....:)

I haven't heard the FBI say anything yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device