Spring 2013 Poll: Democratic Presidential Candidate for 2016

[Wells]

The Supreme Court disagrees. She co-sponsored a bill to ban standard capacity magazines and she supported Feinstein's gun ban.

Relevant court ruling please.

[Elegiac]

The Supreme Court disagrees. She co-sponsored a bill to ban standard capacity magazines and she supported Feinstein's gun ban.

Really? Why don't we see what they have to say on the matter:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

- Part II of the Majority Opinion from District of Columbia v. Heller

[Nadev]

Arctic, are you from Missouri? Is that why Jay Nixon is on here. Because I have never heard of the guy until I saw this thread.

[Grizzly Willy]

If you're going to do that you might as well make tertiary education free.

Would hear no complaints from me.

[McCulloch]

Hillary. She's the only chance Democrats have of winning. I like Biden, but the chances of him overcoming his less than stellar image is slim. Cuomo or O'Malley would be fine, but they would have a harder time winning a national election. They wouldn't get out the youth or minorities as well as Obama did or as well as Hillary could. I don't think Warren would run, but I would like her to.

[Elegiac]

Would hear no complaints from me.

I'm half-half on the issue. Australia attempted to introduce free tertiary education but it really didn't do anything to impact retention rates.

But I suppose the benefit to retained students would be manifest, so.

[GreatOak]

Really? Why don't we see what they have to say on the matter:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

- Part II of the Majority Opinion from District of Columbia v. Heller

It also states that all weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected so an Assault Weapon ban wouldn't fly.

[Wells]

It also states that all weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected so an Assault Weapon ban wouldn't fly.

It would if you're not banning all semi automatic rifles.

[Nakura Chambers]

Arctic, are you from Missouri? Is that why Jay Nixon is on here. Because I have never heard of the guy until I saw this thread.

After about 10 people, I ran out of prominent Democrats who might run for president. I saw on Wikipedia that he had been considered a possible candidates by others within his party. I'm not sure if he ever mentioned any national ambitions, however. He would be a good choice for the Democrats, either as a presidential or vice presidential candidate; he's a bit of a moderate and might turn the Midwest blue. That's sort of why I added him as an option.

[Nadev]

After about 10 people, I ran out of prominent Democrats who might run for president. I saw on Wikipedia that he had been considered a possible candidates by others within his party. I'm not sure if he ever mentioned any national ambitions, however. He would be a good choice for the Democrats, either as a presidential or vice presidential candidate; he's a bit of a moderate and might turn the Midwest blue. That's sort of why I added him as an option.

Oh good to know.

[mvaliz]

How does lowering the cost of college for future students deal with the debt problem right now?

I mean by your own "logic" they're clearly just corporat stooges.

...how does dealing with the debt problem of current students right now deal with the problem of future student college costs?

I mean, by your own "logic" they're clearly just corporate stooges. :P

ADDENUM: To properly answer your question, 1) our future is our children 2) Those new college grads can help those with debt. 3) We can only fix one problem at a time. What you are addressing are two separate problems that don't have to be dealt with by the exact same cure-all.

---------- Post added 2013-05-12 at 05:34 AM ----------

IDK, they have been fishing for something to use against both CLinton and Obama for years now, and they got something, they wont let go. they are going to be beating that drum until someone hangs. they are even screaming for Obama to get impeached over this, when evidence he had anything to do with it doesn't exist.

You see, I've come to a startling conclusion... they (Republican leaders) don't really care - or probably don't even believe themselves - that they have a case against Obama/Hillary or that even any of their accusations are real.

All they are doing is beating a drum so loud, and so often, that every fearmongering Republican will have it drilled into their head that it's somehow a believable FACT that it's a cover up - and THEY (the Republican fearmongering voters) will continue to beat the drum all the way to the election, regardless of it being cleared or not.

[Nakura Chambers]

Relevant court ruling please.

DC v. Heller ruled that a ban on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, including bans on certain types of arms. The last time I checked, semi-automatic rifles were a type of firearm.

DC v. Heller also listed specific exceptions to the Second Amendment, semi-automatic rifles that have "scary looking" cosmetic features wasn't one of those examples.


The fact of the matter is, she opposes gun rights and even admitted to supporting (and I quote) "further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms." You cannot deny this, at least not without suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

[Wells]

DC v. Heller ruled that a ban on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, including bans on certain types of arms. The last time I checked, semi-automatic rifles were a type of firearm.

Feinstein's amendment was not a blanket ban on semi automatic rifles. It was a ban on certain kinds. Heller allows that. For instance you could ban a specific model of handgun (provided a reason), but not all hand guns.

[Nakura Chambers]

Feinstein's amendment was not a blanket ban on semi automatic rifles. It was a ban on certain kinds. Heller allows that. For instance you could ban a specific model of handgun (provided a reason), but not all hand guns.

To my knowledge, which is extensive when it comes to firearms caselaw, The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether banning certain models is unconstitutional. However, that is irrelevant, the point remains that she is opposed to gun rights. Many European courts have ruled that "hate speech" and "extremist speech" are not covered under their respective free speech laws, yet that doesn't change the fact that such bans are still a violation of free speech rights.

[Orbitus]

Feinstein's amendment was not a blanket ban on semi automatic rifles. It was a ban on certain kinds. Heller allows that. For instance you could ban a specific model of handgun (provided a reason), but not all hand guns.

I understand you, other people understand you but this guy, he just doesn't know what really is allowed to happen to amendments. Hes probably one of those that thinks that if you do anything to the 2nd amendment then there goes the rest of the amendments. I have been talking to quite a few on a Ted Cruz congressional hearing video on youtube that are just as adamant and just as ignorant of gun laws and they refuse to believe that anything to change or add additional laws to the gun control is against the 2nd amendment. Where they believe there is no gun show loophole, that 40% of the gun sales go through gun shows and that those sales in 33 states don't have background checks. Especially when my friend who is an Iraq War vet in the National Guard, came back with PTSD, knows that if they close that loophole he can't buy a gun at gunshows anymore.

[GreatOak]

Feinstein's amendment was not a blanket ban on semi automatic rifles. It was a ban on certain kinds. Heller allows that. For instance you could ban a specific model of handgun (provided a reason), but not all hand guns.

The famed common use standard protects functionality, meaning that the second amendment protects all weapons in common (functional) use for lawful purposes.. It doesn't distinguish between "Assault Weapons" and other semi-automatics.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1722955
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pd...ller-HLRev.pdf

[Sky High]

Many European courts have ruled that "hate speech" and "extremist speech" are not covered under their respective free speech laws, yet that doesn't change the fact that such bans are still a violation of free speech rights.

that is...completely based on what that country says is free speech.....you do realize that? it's subjective to what THEY define it as, not what the US constitutions dictates, get with the program.

[Wells]

The famed common use standard protects functionality, meaning that the second amendment protects all weapons in common (functional) use for lawful purposes.. It doesn't distinguish between "Assault Weapons" and other semi-automatics.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1722955
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pd...ller-HLRev.pdf

I'm aware there are opinions to the contrary.

[Nakura Chambers]

I understand you, other people understand you but this guy, he just doesn't know what really is allowed to happen to amendments. Hes probably one of those that thinks that if you do anything to the 2nd amendment then there goes the rest of the amendments. I have been talking to quite a few on a Ted Cruz congressional hearing video on youtube that are just as adamant and just as ignorant of gun laws and they refuse to believe that anything to change or add additional laws to the gun control is against the 2nd amendment. Where they believe there is no gun show loophole, that 40% of the gun sales go through gun shows and that those sales in 33 states don't have background checks. Especially when my friend who is an Iraq War vet in the National Guard, came back with PTSD, knows that if they close that loophole he can't buy a gun at gunshows anymore.

You do realize that every single fact-checker has absolutely destroyed Obama's claim that "40% of firearms transactions are done without a background check" right?

Do you also realize that there is no "gun show loophole?" It's a political term made up by the gun control lobby.
Fact: The so-called "gun show loophole" isn't about gun shows, it's about banning private firearms transactions; i.e. I give my brother a gun for Christmas.
Fact: Anyone who regularly engages in selling firearms at gun shows is required to have a Federal Firearms License.
Fact: Around 1% or less of all criminals (who used guns) received their guns at a gun show.

[Wells]

Do you also realize that there is no "gun show loophole?" It's a political term made up by the gun control lobby.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/1...estions-asked/

Fact: Anyone who regularly engages in selling firearms at gun shows is required to have a Federal Firearms License.

Anyone who engages in "business" needs one. Not everyone selling is legally engaging in business.