Hillary Clinton says gun culture is 'way out of balance'

There are 20 comments on the May 6, 2014, CTV story titled Hillary Clinton says gun culture is 'way out of balance'. In it, CTV reports that:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation's gun culture has gotten "way out of balance" and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that "anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CTV.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
oingo69

Houghton, MI

#1 May 6, 2014
I think the Democratic party needs to know that voting is a right of US citizens and that universal ID card checks need to be conducted for voters to ensure that Democrats can't rely on voter fraud to keep their jobs.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#2 May 6, 2014
oingo69 wrote:
I think the Democratic party needs to know that voting is a right of US citizens and that universal ID card checks need to be conducted for voters to ensure that Democrats can't rely on voter fraud to keep their jobs.
There is no in-person voter fraud. That is a rightwing myth designed to help the GOP steal more elections by suppressing voter turn-out.

Fortunately the courts are catching on and overturning those bogus laws as unconstitutional.
Enough already

Bronx, NY

#3 May 6, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no in-person voter fraud. That is a rightwing myth designed to help the GOP steal more elections by suppressing voter turn-out.
Fortunately the courts are catching on and overturning those bogus laws as unconstitutional.
Since when does the Democratic Party even consider the Constitution in anything they do?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#4 May 6, 2014
Enough already wrote:
<quoted text> Since when does the Democratic Party even consider the Constitution in anything they do?
Since every single day. Ever heard of the ACLU?

Try to be serious.
sandy1

New City, NY

#5 May 6, 2014
The falling down grandma should be more concerned with what Trey Gowdy has in store for her,than another feeble attempt at violating our Second Amendment rights.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#6 May 6, 2014
When Hilldebeast gives up HER taxpayer funded armed guards I'll CONSIDER not carrying MY pistol......
Enough already

Killingworth, CT

#8 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Since every single day. Ever heard of the ACLU?
Try to be serious.
. ACLU is a contributor to the demise of this country. Seriously? Try that logic elsewhere, it holds no water here.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#9 May 7, 2014
Enough already wrote:
<quoted text>. ACLU is a contributor to the demise of this country. Seriously? Try that logic elsewhere, it holds no water here.
The ACLU is an organization devoted entirely and exclusively to protecting our Constitutional rights. If you think that work is destroying the nation then you must REALLY hate the Constitution.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#10 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACLU is an organization devoted entirely and exclusively to protecting our Constitutional rights...
Except ... where they don't personally agree with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.

For example ...

"Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#11 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
The ACLU is an organization devoted entirely and exclusively to protecting our Constitutional rights. If you think that work is destroying the nation then you must REALLY hate the Constitution.
The ACLU primarily champions liberal causes. It has on occasion taken a conservative case on,but these are rare as rocking horse sh1t. On the whole it DOES a needed service but needs to be more arbitrary in whose rights they protect. So far they have been a 70/30 disservice to most Americans.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#12 May 7, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
Except ... where they don't personally agree with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
For example ...
"Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties."
It also reflects the understanding of the founding fathers and the SCOTUS for over 230 years.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#13 May 7, 2014
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>The ACLU primarily champions liberal causes. It has on occasion taken a conservative case on,but these are rare as rocking horse sh1t. On the whole it DOES a needed service but needs to be more arbitrary in whose rights they protect. So far they have been a 70/30 disservice to most Americans.
Please expound. How has the ACLU been "a 70/30 disservice to most Americans?" Advocating for the Constitution is a benefit to all Americans.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#14 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It also reflects the understanding of the founding fathers and the SCOTUS for over 230 years.
I COULD take your interpretation .. OR .. that of the currently sitting court of life-long constitutional scholars?

Hmmmm.... tough decision.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#15 May 7, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
I COULD take your interpretation .. OR .. that of the currently sitting court of life-long constitutional scholars?
Hmmmm.... tough decision.
Our current court has an activist majority that claims the guiding principle of originalism and who all testified before Congress that they would respect stare decisis. But they abandoned these so-called principles in favor of a rightwing political agenda.

They interpreted the 2nd according to the living document philosophy and ignored 230 years of legal precedent. That is not just my opinion - it is shared broadly among legal scholars, including "life-long constitutional scholars."

Now you approve of these activist rulings because they suit your political ideology, but that doesn't change that they were partisan, extremist, and shameful. And it doesn't change that they are historically embarrassing decisions (much like Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bush v Gore) and will certainly be reversed within my lifetime.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#16 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Please expound. How has the ACLU been "a 70/30 disservice to most Americans?" Advocating for the Constitution is a benefit to all Americans.
In many of the cases found in favor of the ACLU the majority has been discomfitted in favor of a few. Granted the rights of the minority need protecting,but should a majority if Christians be forced to stop prayer because a couple non-believers found it uncomfortable that people of Faith dare pray in public? Why should a memorial cross,set up after WWI be taken down 100 years later because a few felt it was Government's sanction of a religion? Do we REALLY need a group that spends it's time second guessing SCOTUS with THEIR interpretation of how THEY read the Constitution?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#17 May 7, 2014
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>In many of the cases found in favor of the ACLU the majority has been discomfitted in favor of a few. Granted the rights of the minority need protecting,but should a majority if Christians be forced to stop prayer because a couple non-believers found it uncomfortable that people of Faith dare pray in public? Why should a memorial cross,set up after WWI be taken down 100 years later because a few felt it was Government's sanction of a religion? Do we REALLY need a group that spends it's time second guessing SCOTUS with THEIR interpretation of how THEY read the Constitution?
You are correct - the Constitution does and should protect the rights of the minority from oppression by the majority.

The majority of Christians should abide by the Constitution.

Christian symbols on public land violate the 1st Amendment because they are government sanctioning of a specific religion.

Yes, we REALLY need a group that defends the US Constitution because there are always threats to our liberties - mostly from the right BTW, which is why you and other conservatives hate the ACLU so much because they undermine your political agenda.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#18 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>

Now you approve of these activist rulings because they suit your political ideology...
And you don't because they don't suit yours. En passé.

I'm guessing you're a Democrat but your party platform and your own President have stated flatly that RKBA is an individual right, not a collective right, the crux of Heller. I'm more than willing to side with the Democrats and President Obama on that.

That position may change in the future but I doubt it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#19 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Our current court has an activist majority that claims the guiding principle of originalism and who all testified before Congress that they would respect stare decisis. But they abandoned these so-called principles in favor of a rightwing political agenda.
They interpreted the 2nd according to the living document philosophy and ignored 230 years of legal precedent. That is not just my opinion - it is shared broadly among legal scholars, including "life-long constitutional scholars."
Now you approve of these activist rulings because they suit your political ideology, but that doesn't change that they were partisan, extremist, and shameful. And it doesn't change that they are historically embarrassing decisions (much like Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bush v Gore) and will certainly be reversed within my lifetime.
Don't tell me you're upset about activist jurists? Or is it just the ones who favor conservatives?

The BASIC premise of the 2nd Amendment remains. Citizens have the right,are entitled to keep and bear arms. The few restrictions upheld by the court was in response to necessity to prevent careers criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining them. Background checks are a part of that. Beyond that there is no restriction on ownership of any firrearm. Up to and including fully automatic. If you can afford it and pass the necessary checks you can own it. Small cannon,relic anti-aircraft guns ect all fall in this catagory. I know several folks with Full auto arms. I have a 1/2 scale Napolean civil war muzzle loading cannon for a yard decoration. Fully functional. Guess what I did on my summer vacation last year..... LOL

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#20 May 7, 2014
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
And you don't because they don't suit yours. En passé.
I'm guessing you're a Democrat but your party platform and your own President have stated flatly that RKBA is an individual right, not a collective right, the crux of Heller. I'm more than willing to side with the Democrats and President Obama on that.
That position may change in the future but I doubt it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the future brings.
The pro-gun lobby is passionate, activist, and well-funded. They have successfully convinced most of America that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, contrary to the founders' intent and 230 years of Constitutional law. At the same time, the majority of Americans support reasonable regulations on gun ownership.

I have supreme confidence in the Constitution, America's court system, and the ultimate rationality of the American people. There is no doubt in my mind that this nation will eventually return to the original intention of the 2nd Amendment and tightly regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#21 May 7, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct - the Constitution does and should protect the rights of the minority from oppression by the majority.
The majority of Christians should abide by the Constitution.
Christian symbols on public land violate the 1st Amendment because they are government sanctioning of a specific religion.
Yes, we REALLY need a group that defends the US Constitution because there are always threats to our liberties - mostly from the right BTW, which is why you and other conservatives hate the ACLU so much because they undermine your political agenda.
U. S. Constitution Bill of Rights:

Amendment I:

Freedom of religion,speech and the press. Rights of assembly and petition.

(You will notice the words are Freedom OF Religion. Not FROM Religion. Just how libs managed to f**k THAT up is revealing tho..... It means we are safeguarded in our respective beliefs. It ensures that our government does not sanction ANY State religion,such as England's Anglican church or Saudi Arabia"s Islam. It does NOT prevent Americans of Faith,of ANY Religion from exercising that belief and practices.... ANYWHERE. Activist judges have ruled counter to this in their misguided attampts to placate a highly vocal minority at the expense of a majority. But of course you agree with THESE activist jurists....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sheriff, lawyer dispute whether 73-year-old dep... 5 hr impartial 36
Democrats: Get A $2,000 Tax Credit For Turning ... Apr 20 Truth and Facts 13
Kahr CW40 PROBLEM (Dec '08) Apr 17 OlFed 48
News Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) Apr 15 AMERICA 12,178
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Apr 13 swedenforever 112
News Who's calling the shots in Canada? Apr 10 Truth and Facts 2
Suspect in Arizona Shooting Spree a White Supre... Apr 5 Truth and Facts 82
More from around the web