Endorsement Race 2016

The only thing I know for sure is Hillary's court will change America from what it is to something unrecognizable for the next 50 years...and not to the good of the Constitution. I'd rather take my chances with anybody but Clinton.

You are free to move to Somalia, giujohn. They don't have gun laws there.

Holy Christ keeping up with how wrong you are is like a full-time job. Do you check anything out before you spout off this crap?

Somalia has some of the strictest gun laws in the world... Now what you're probably referring to is the armed criminals who roam the country who seem to have an abundance of guns (oh and by the way the number of guns per 100 people in Somalia is 9) but if Hillary has her way we will be just like Somalia... real strict gun laws and only the criminals will have guns.

Really? Care to cite those gun laws?

You really buy this garbage that's being fed to you? Both democrats and republicans love their guns and are loathe to even deal substantively with the issue. Lots of rhetoric but very little in the way of actual doing. If the gov't was really interested in keeping you from your guns, the pogram would look very different..

Hillary is a republican light. Her view is that she wants what she calls 'sensible gun laws'. Which in my view are not nearly enough to achieve their stated (rhetorical) goals. But at least they are something and would help reduce gun violence (including accidental here) somewhat.

The fuss seems to come from some inane idea that passing the smallest law will lead to what you are spouting: the revocation of the 2nd amendment.

Look, the gov't restricts all kinds of behaviour from us. We need licenses to drive a car because it is considered a 'deadly weapon'. Did this lead to some revocation of some other right? And what is the result of these laws? In what way are we substantively harmed? Not theoretical, substantive!

And more importantly, what exactly is the evidence for the getting rid of the 2nd amendment as it relates to gun laws? Your own paranoia does not count as evidence.

Do your own leg work... maybe you'll learn something.

I'm not the one buying garbage nor am I a purveyor of garbage... when did driving a car become an unalienable right?
It is a matter of established fact that Hillary in a conversation that we were not supposed to hear stated that the Supreme Court got it wrong in the Heller Decision which recognizes the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms and she stated that she would do whatever she needed to do to oppose that. She's also for a ban on semi-automatic weapons that have a pistol grip and a flash suppressor and a detachable magazine. Hillary believes the Constitution is a living document and needs to be adjusted for modern times. That of course is total bullshit. Either we have a constitution as written or we don't have one at all. Anybody who wants to know the intent of the framers needs only to read The Federalist Papers and their other writings... It is more than clear what they meant. Unfortunately most people believe that the Bill of Rights is somehow a guarantee by the government who extends these rights to the people that of course is also bullshit. The Bill of Rights is nothing more than an enumeration of those rights that are unalienable... Meaning that the government didn't give them to me it is my Birthright.

The Anniston Star from Alabama endorsed Clinton today. That's not terribly surprising as they endorsed the President four years ago, but it is interesting for small to medium city Alabama. Excerpt from their editorial:

What Clinton will bring to the White House is intelligence. Trump has been a narcissist all his life, and life revolves around himself. He thinks he knows it all, but he proves his ignorance every time he speaks. He has no depth of knowledge on anything except his money, and some even question that.

First off, extending Clintons comments re: Heller to include abolishing the 2nd amendment is far fetched. She has never come out and said she is for abolishing the 2nd amendment. She said she is for common sense measures to ensure protections..

Secondly, your insistence on the constitution and its inviolability borders on religion. Change is the only constant. We grow, we move, we mature. Stagnation is death. Ask the Romans. Oh wait..

Seriously though, saying that we can amend constitutional rights doesn't mean the 2nd amendment should be amended. It just says that folks who wrote something 200+ years ago are not perfect and more than that, that what they wrote may no longer be applicable to us today. If something in the Constitution holds up under scrutiny, fair enough. But a culture changes, it is inevitable. It cannot be otherwise. When this country was 'created' by the Europeans, it was set on an unalterable course that would include and will continue to include the changing of the culture. Some of that means that its politics must change as well..

I speak in generalities because I don't know what needs to change, only that it must. And that change may also destroy us. It depends on what the change is. You think taking away your hand guns is part of that destruction. Fair enough. But to accuse Hillary of that is preposterous. I don't care for her and political frame of reference, there are so many other things that she could be called to task for. Yet, you choose one whose outcome is known and so is essentially a non-issue and even where you to make it into an issue, for the things that conspire to destroy this country, this is way down the list..

"Non-issue" says it best. Nobody has enough political power to take away any of our Constitutional guarantees.

The Constitution means what the judicial branch says it means. The President appoints the judicial branch. Ultimately the Constitution is, as a certain fascist from the Thirties and Forties might have put it, a piece of paper. If people stop caring about the ideas behind it, the Constitution will blow away in the wind.

Also, the judiciary declared Andrew Jackson's expulsion of the Cherokee from the Appalachians unconstitutional I think, or at least illegal on some grounds. He said something to the effect of "the court has made it's decision; now let them enforce it."

correct..it means something until it doesn't..

Ever heard of the Sullivan Act? Tell it to the residents of NYC

Support your own claim. You might gain some respectability.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration, put down on paper as emphasis, of rights that you are born with; basic human individual rights of free people. Notice that they have never been amended repealed or replaced or even had an attempt to do so. What is supposed to occur, is in an uncertain situation the court decides if the amendment applies or if the action in question is under the purview of the Constitution, is constitutional or not.

Activist judges want to decide what the Constitution means in order to foist their own definition on us, the poor stupid masses, supplanting the timeless wisdom of the framers, usually for the sake of political expediency.

Those who would say that one of these rights are not for the individual, is purposely attempting to infringe that right. For common sense would dictate that the framers, who feared an overly powerful central government most if all, would not draft one right assigned to the government in a catalogue of individual rights...more importantly governments dont have rights...only people do.

Trust me...I lose no sleep whatsoever at any lack of respect by liberals.

No one person has the authority to amend the Constitution, active judges or not.

No they can't amend but they can strip the amendment of its effect and application by usurping it's meaning.

Then the states can ratify an amendment reversing that decision