debate_wide-19bbad26bb70e37ea7d06345d114367d00aa949c-s900-c85

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in the middle of their first presidential debate, and the latest topic is gun control. The question which prompted the first statement about guns was about how to heal the nation following the high profile shootings of minorities, and in response one of Hillary’s top recommendations is to ‘get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.’

“The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death among young African American males,” Secretary Clinton stated. She then went on to state that our effort should be focused on taking guns out of the hands of people who “shouldn’t have them.” She then stated “I believe that common sense gun safety measures would assist us. […] We have too many military style assault weapons on the streets. In some places our police are outgunned.” Also on her list of “common sense” provisions to implement is a prohibition on firearms for people on the ‘terrorist watchlist.’

“We have gangs roaming the streets who are here illegally, they shouldn’t be here.” Donald Trump replied, hinting that making an effort to remove illegal guns would be as effective as the current effort for removing illegal immigrants from the streets of American cities. In response to Clinton’s statement about eliminating gun rights for people on watch lists he stated “I agree with you, when a person is on a watchlist or a no-fly list […] I tend to agree with that very strongly” that we should curtail rights for people on watchlists.

Click for more information about the terrorist watchlist firearms prohibition and how it might be a dangerous idea for civil liberties.

img_20160926_193648

Posting from TTAG’s top secret above ground back porch. Tonight’s method of dealing with watching the debate: one part spiced rum, one part orange juice, two parts pineapple juice.

At 9:13 PM Central Lester Holt asked about how the candidates would stop “home grown” terrorist attacks like those in San Bernardino. While the question probably would have led into a conversation about gun control, the candidates pivoted to a discussion about something I was too drunk to remember.

The debate is now concluded. Which is good, because I’m running low on liquor.

[Updated 9:39 PM Central]

Recommended For You

147 Responses to BREAKING: Trump and Clinton Debate Gun Control at Presidential Debate [LIVE]

  1. “The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death among young African American males,” Secretary Clinton stated.

    Only if you ignore every other cause that beats it.

      • That’s 15-34 years of life that the African Americans who died of the leading cause of death among African Americans didn’t get the opportunity to enjoy.

    • “The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death among young African American males,”

      Really? I figured young black males were the leading cause of death among young black males.

      • She said take the guns from people who shouldn’t have them, followed immediately by stating that it’s mostly an issue with the African American community. She practically said “black people shouldn’t have guns.” Most racist thing I’ve ever seen.

        • Holy crap. I’m shocked by those results. Trump is 2x Hillary in nearly all of them, including on what I’d include to be fairly left-leaning sites. The “who are you voting for” poll on ABC News is really freaking interesting.

        • I’m no fan of Hillary, but there’s nothing incorrect about the fact that the vast majority of homicides in the nation are committed by young urban black men. You don’t solve a problem by ignoring key facts.

        • “Holy crap. I’m shocked by those results. Trump is 2x Hillary in nearly all of them,…”

          Since it is ‘The Conservative Treehouse’, I think a number of them are biased right.

          HuffPo and their ilk are crowing a HildaBeast victory, but they are biased left.

          Five thirty-eight is an aggregated poll updated multiple times daily, they show no real change at this time.

          http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

          It will take a few days to digest the actual impact, but overall, he could have done better, this may slap some sense into him to better prepare for the next one…

        • Good catch. Democrats have always been the party of slavery. After they lost the Civil War to the anti-slavery Republican, Abe Lincoln, the Democrats created the KKK night riders to keep the freed slaves in their place. For the next thirty years there were Black Republican elected mayors, councilmen and even a few US Senators.
          Somehow the Democrats snookered the former slaves and Blacks began to vote Democrat even though they were just free men and women in the plantation.
          The Army was integrated until Democrat Woodrow Wilson segregated the Army before WWI.
          I’ve asked many black men and women whether Lincoln was a Republican or a Democrat. So far most have said either I don’t know or the guessed Democrat.
          Another example of how the school system has shortchanged black students, they don’t teach history. It is no wonder that so many black students drop out of high school.

    • These debates are enough to drive you to drink. I was saying during the debate that if you took a drink every time the candidates repeated themselves, pretty soon you’d be so drunk you wouldn’t care.

    • Yeah. He showed his colors.

      On NoFly and StopandFrisk, both candidates mirror every other despot in history.

      I believe we the US can survive either one of these dorks. The next four years will be ulcer-inducing with either one.

      I know how Hitlary will proceed on the 2nd. The Donald will be a wild card.

      • Hillary came out fairly strongly against stop-and-frisk on Constitutional grounds. Trump pretty much said that since it works, we should do it. I was surprised to find myself siding with her on an issue. Although she lied about it not working as another reason not to do it. It DOES work, and it’s also unconstitutional and a horrible violation of our rights and, therefore, no amount of positive results make it okay. She wasn’t honest. He was, but I definitely didn’t like that either.

        • Hopefully the next debate gets interrupted by a giant meteor. Because other than that we’re all just waiting on heart disease.

        • I’m going to do more research on this, but Trump and Giuliani both mentioned reasonable suspicion and protective search within the parameters of “Stop and Frisk.” Both of those seem to pass the SCOTUS Terry vs. Ohio 8-1 ruling. The Stop and Frisk done by Bloomberg allegedly increased six fold, and did not include the constitutional standard of reasonable frisk. The Bloomberg application of Stop and Frisk, without reasonable suspicion, clearly appears to be unconstitutional.

          Anyways, it doesn’t initially seem that Stop and Frisk, as applied by Giuliani, as unconstitutional.

          Again, I’m going to do more research on the matter.

          And yes, I do frisk people for weapons during the course of some of my legal stops. Terry vs. Ohio has ruled that to be constitutional, unless there is another relevant case law that I am missing.

          Disclaimer: I’m a cop and not a lawyer.

        • The problem is that the “reasonable suspicion” standard articulated by Terry v. Ohio has been so eroded over the years that it’s become virtually dead letter in practice, more of a list of buzzwords to be included in the police report than an actual standard of evidence. Acceptable “articulable reasons” include a great number of things that are vague, subjective, and/or otherwise immune to rebuttal regardless of the facts, reasons such as “furtive movement”, as I recall the most popular reason cited in NYC. There’s also staring at police, avoiding eye contact with police, and displaying an unusual familiarity with police procedures (for instance, by knowing the exact amount of time to meet an officer’s gaze so as to be neither “staring” nor “avoiding eye contact”). Mere presence in a “high crime area” is allowed to be a factor, with the designation of high-crime areas being made subjectively by the police themselves.

      • We can lump this part of the debate into all of the bill of rights, not just the gun debate. They both failed.
        Did you hear the way Hillary said: “common sense gun……safety”? She paused as if she almost said gun “control”.
        The argument on stop and frisk was as random as watching a Pachinko machine game. First, Hillary said it was unconstitutional because it targeted blacks. Then Trump said it was not unconstitutional and the only reason it was stopped was because the current mayor dropped it. Then Hillary said it was stopped because it did not reduce crime. WTF? It is unconstitutional because it violates 4th amendment rights of all citizens stopped for search (if that is actually how it is practiced) but how can anyone dispute that it caught felons with illegal guns and have an enormous effect on NYC’s crime, particularly murder rate?
        Trumps entire debate played like Pachinko.

      • Trump can be educated. hillary is a lost cause. We need to bend his ear, hold our nose if necessary and vote for Trump to preserve the nation.
        The Democrats have destroyed 96% of the value of the dollar which is why the “poor” suffer so much, it takes a $1,000 to do what $100 did just 40 years ago.

        Trump needs to remember that Senator Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list and it took a U. S. Senator weeks to get removed from the list. Anybody can be placed on the list, in secret The average Joe or Leroy or Lynda or Martha will never be off the list.

      • Oh, good. That’s certainly worth one less vote to help protect us from the liberal activist judges that Hillary would nominate.

      • Don’t stay home, go and vote the under ticket. We especially need good senators that will block the SCOTUS nominees these two dipshits are bound to nominate.

        • Wish I had a decent under ticket. Listening to his opponent, you’d think Toomey was the most Pro-gun Senator ever.

    • Very well said. The Trump Trainers are going to very surprised when, IF he wins, he supports gun control. I will NEVER forget Bush 1 in 1988 saying – “No new gun laws!” and then after the Purdey shooting (in office 1 month) he banned all imported military styled rifles until Congress could follow up with a permanent ban. Some of us were not surprised as in the late 1980s, Bush 1 held up a North American Arms mini .22 revolver at a national FOP event and stated that he was not for gun control but that small guns that criminals can hide from frisks need to be banned because the anti-gun FOP wanted them banned. Now Donald wants unconstitutional searches and no due process for people who wins up on a list – but government is supposed to come up with a way to get off the list – yeah right! After all of your guns are confiscated and after spending a life savings in lawyer fees.

        • You think you should get to read the bank statements, W2, insurance and credit card statements, etc of others? BS

        • “Will this happen right after he releases his tax returns?”

          He makes a *lot* of money, I have no problem with that.

          At least he didn’t make it by mooching ‘donations’ from individuals and foreign entities in a blatant influence-peddling scheme deceptively calling itself a charity.

          Trump has made plenty of those payments himself, some of them to the Clinton ‘Foundation’…

        • ‘You think you should get to read the bank statements, W2, insurance and credit card statements, etc of others? BS’

          The only thing that appears on your tax returns in that list is your W2 and in Trump’s case that would only be what his own corporations pay him in salary. And running for president means that you seek to be the country’s chief public servant and dictates a level of personal privacy that’s somewhat lower than what an average citizen who’s just minding his own business is subject to.

          ‘He makes a *lot* of money…’

          Or does he?

          ‘At least he didn’t make it by mooching ‘donations’ from individuals and foreign entities in a blatant influence-peddling scheme deceptively calling itself a charity.’

          No, he just ripped off working class stiffs of their life savings peddling a phony education scheme. Hello, ever heard of Trump U? What kind of asshole has several billion $$$ and still runs confidence scams on the lower-middle class?

        • I don’t even care whether he is “supposed” to release the tax returns or not. The point is that the man promised that he’ll do so any time now… more than a year ago. And since then he’s been coming with more and more laughable excuses as to why not – if I remember correctly, the last one was that “it’ll just confuse people and distract them from the issues”. You can’t make that shit up.

          If he just went and said, “I don’t want to release my returns as a matter of personal privacy” from the get go, that would have been a much more defensible position.

          As far as mooching donations – do you really want to raise this point, when talking about a guy who has set up a “charitable” foundation with his name on it, into which he hasn’t paid a single dollar for 6 years straight now, but which funds he has used for personal expenses and settling lawsuits? There’s plenty of suspicious stuff about Clinton Foundation, but at least Clintons put their money where their mouth is – a million last year alone.

  2. And then The Donald had to go and say that we can limit 2nd Amendment rights for people on a mystical watchlist. No Donald…being on a No Fly or a Terrorist Watchlist does not deprive one of one’s Second Amendment rights. Any other rights you think we should limit along with that one? Right to free speech? Assembly? To not incriminate oneself? Why just stop at the 2nd.

      • @ DaveDetroit, that’s a good point that simply will not penetrate the “deep thinkers” here.

        They scream about due process and when due process is incorporated, it’s not enough. Nothing is ever enough.

      • Bingo.

        It’s about due process.

        Is Trump perfect regarding the 2nd Amendment? Hell, no. But he’s a damn sight better than both Hillary and Johnson. If he screws up the 2nd, I vote for someone else, and contribute money and support to someone else in 2020. I’ve donated thousands of dollars to Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, FPC, NRA, Calguns, GOA, and others. Got another pro-gun candidate? I’ll be slinging money their way, too (if it’s in my budget, anyways).

        This is reminiscent of the 2008 and 2012 deals where a lot of folks on TTAG thought Obama wouldn’t go after guns. Ralph, Robert Farago, and I were adamant that Obama would go after guns. Well here we are in 2016, and I can absolutely guarantee you that Hillary will go after guns. Trump *might* go after guns.

        People, the math is pretty clear on that. Hillary is 100% anti gun and Trump is less than that. Trump is still the realistic pro-gun vote in 2016. If that changes, support someone else.

      • The NRA statement says “and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.” But for how long. If the answer is “three business days” then it’s no more than the FBI may legally do now, but can’t be bothered to. If the answer is “indefinitely”, then it’s the same denial of rights without due process.

      • DaveDetroit, “Trump supports the version of the no fly list gun restriction which incorporates due process, which is the version supported by the NRA.”

        I’m having trouble finding where Trump actually says that. Can you point me to where I can find that he agrees with the NRA position?

      • For one, we have no idea what the final legislation will look like if/when it gets passed. Second, the NRA also supported the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, the very anti-gun ownership Project Exile (which they love to brag about and want to see go nationwide), etc. and supported hundreds of anti-2nd Amendment (but sort of “pro-gun”) candidates in state and federal elections over the decades. Although I am a member ,and for over 30 years as they do mostly good, I’m not blind to many shenanigans they pulled off over the years.

        If this No Fly Ban gets passed in any form, due process WILL be compromised AND the law can always be amended to make it worse for gun owning, constitutional supporting, prepper-minded, patriotic, Christian, Americans by throwing us into the same category as Muslim extremists – already done actually. It also sets precedent for banning gun rights for other reasons. What about an “extremist” group/club/association membership no gun buy ban? What about an “extremist” blog posting no gun buy ban?

        I can care less what the polls say about who won the debates or who is leading – Trump is a very poor candidate, and even worse debater, who was just working with RINOs a few years ago to wreck the Tea Party (whom he called extreme) and who in the past made many statements against the 2nd Amendment (hi cap mag & “assault weapons” bans), and supported the most left-wing/Marxist Democrats financially for years (his daughter is still a huge supporter and friend of VERY left-wing democrat politician Cory Booker – please explain this), BUT all of that supposedly changed when he made his run for office only two years ago. I agree with a lot of what he “says”: build a wall/secure the border, get rid of unfair trade agreements, drill for oil in the U.S., lower taxes, no gun bans, destroy ISIS, etc. and maybe he did change -I hope so but I will not be a blind supporter of him. Where were his gun-owning sons (who are now at every gun event and featured in every gun blog) when his father was calling for gun bans only a few years ago? Trump’s website (the last time I looked) does not address the 2nd Amendment as defined by the Founders of this nation but takes more of a Heller decision perspective – right to own a gun for self-defense and sporting usage (this view will always be whittled down to the leftist perspective: “All you have a right to, and all you need, is a .38 snub nose and a hunting or target configuration long-arm for self-defense and sporting/hunting purposes”). He also said that he would get the best people as his advisors – what a joke. I don’t blame anyone for voting for him as the best we can do is pray and hope for the best. Hopefully, the country will not go down the tubes as fast regarding freedom but don’t be surprised that when/if he is elected, left wing policies creep in, campaign promises don’t happen, and that the Republican party also keeps moving to the left.

      • It was very much a play to the moderates. I think he should have followed up with the idea that we as a people should be able to defend ourselves because the idea of preventing terrorism is a fool’s errand.

        • Really? Closing the borders to Islamic migrants/”refugees” and deporting the “refugees” and others previously allowed in would not reduce the incidents within the US?

          “Refuge” is for someone looking for refuge. WTF is the refuge closed and they GO HOME?

        • It may prevent part of it, but it has to be taken into account that 1)These attacks are actually rare no matter the bullshit the media spews and 2)We’ve been trying for decades to lock this down but haven’t succeeded and 3)They will come up with new and innovative ways to kill people. The worse terrorist attacks in this country were done with box cutters, fertilizer and a Ryder Truck. 4)Despite the illusion of terrorism being a horrible threat we are probably better off being vigilant against common criminals.

          I said nothing wrong of the idea of immigration reform (That said latest several incidents haven’t really done much great for the idea of immigration in the US considering that they’ve been largely immigrants or first generation.)

          I can tell you a gun isn’t an absolute in a situation where someone wants to kill you, but it defends against enemies regardless of them being foreign or domestic origin in many situations.

  3. I gave up. I couldn’t listen to that shit anymore. I don’t know if it was the debate format or what but… ugh.

    On this topic the debate doesn’t really matter. We know where HRC stands. Gun bans, buybacks confiscation and just a general idea that people shouldn’t be armed.

    DJT’s stance is more nuanced and I don’t like stop and frisk but what would you rather have? A situation where you can be stopped and frisked or one where you’re a flat out felon for possession of that gun no matter what?

    This is basically a question of which devil you prefer.

    • I’d prefer a situation where we take the constitution up through the bill of rights, replace the word “state” with “county” and make it the constitution for the Republic of Texas.

      • So Three Fifth compromise and Fugitive Slave Clauses are in, but 13th and 14th aren’t?

        I mean, as Republic of Texas goes, it would certainly be quite traditional, but I suspect quite a few Texans might object.

    • I can’t stand either one. But I’m going Trump. Meanwhile the Cubs are winning their 100th game 12-0…I prefer an orange devil.

        • Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That would keep the Cards out. Never Cubs, unless it’s against the AL, then yeah, I could go along with it.

        • Ralph, if you knew anything about baseball you’d know that the worst thing that could ever happen to the Cubs is for them to win the World Series. That would ruin everything the team and their fans stand for.

      • Yessss…the Cubs just beat the Cards 2 of 3 when it MATTERED. AND kicked their azzes in the playoffs 2015. Make fun of the Bears…

        • Cards are ahead 11 World Series wins to 10, and the difference is the Cards have won a few post 1945.

          I’m a Chicagoland native, born at Cook County Memorial, but thinking the Cubs are ever going to win anything in this century? C’mon….

        • Good to see I started something! THE difference is this ain’t your dad’s lovable losers-and Joe Maddon is a winner…I am not a lifetime Cub fan either, Formerly(pre 1984)Sox fan. If the blacksox can win so can the Cubs…

  4. They agree that terrorists shouldn’t have guns.

    What do they think terrorists SHOULD have? Besides maybe an 8’x12′ patch of concrete and a stainless steel toilet.

      • Yeah. The difference is called the right to “due process”. And even those under “suspicion” have the right. Those who aren’t under suspicion don’t need it.

      • Except that unlike Clinton, he emphasized that we should do more to make sure that people on the list are actually terrorists.

  5. My favorite part was when Trump announced support for programs that would rescind peoples’ constitutional rights by executive fiat.

  6. I didn’t last five minutes listening. I did check back with the sound off because I can not stand to hear that woman’s voice and she looks drugged up to me the way she keeps blinking all the time, like some drug they gave her is making her eyes more sensitive to the light.

  7. Where the h3ll are all the trumpkins that were here proclaiming his awesomeness to no end. “Trump knows business, Trump is pro gun, Trump, Trump, Trump”. Now its all “Trump sux but not bad as Hillary…”

    • I’m still right here. And my loyalty is conditional. If Trump screws up, I support someone else. We have 30 years history of Hillary screwing up. Again, I support the 2nd Amendment, and I put my money where my mouth is. Thousands of dollars worth. Can you hang with that or just mention comments on TTAG?

      • “support the 2nd Amendment…Thousands of dollars worth. Can you hang with that”
        Umm, in a word, yes. Typically though, my dollars and efforts go to candidates that have a long proven track record of supporting the all the Amendments and honoring the Constitution, separation of powers and legislative process as described in our founding document.

        “If Trump screws up, I support someone else.”
        Nope. You wanted him, we got him, own it. My candidate fought for 2A in the courts, had a proven track record going back for his entire career but he lost the primary so I may have to vote for Trump. Trump has a NY CWP and a pro gun stance going back well over 300 days but I don’t have to embrace him.

        I am just asking where is all Trump’s rabid support at when his water needs to be carried.

  8. What a debacle. Trump’s ego wouldn’t let him prepare properly. His surrogates were saying he was the “Babe Ruth” of debating. Well, the Mighty Casey has struck out.

    Actually, it’s only a first strike because there are two more debates. Obama blew his first debate too, but still got 2 terms from it.

    Now that Trump’s gotten his butt handed to him, maybe he’ll take those a lot more seriously. Maybe spend over a week preparing like Hillary did. Maybe actually have some good arguments and counter-punches ready.

    But probably not. Sad.

    • But will it really matter?

      It looked to me that folks are reading into it what they want, and who cares about anyone else?

    • I’m not sure what debate you watched. He dominated the first hour, especially the economic questions. She did better during the last 30 minutes.

    • So far polls say Trump won. I enjoyed watching her smug smile slide off her face as the debate went on. I didn’t even watch the last 30 minutes, saw all I needed to see.

    • The thing I’ve learned watching debates, and then talking to other people who watched the same debates, is that what people such as you and I see, and what other people see, is often dramatically different.

      RKBA/Gun people tend to be rooted in facts. No amount of sunshine, butterscotch and Smurf kisses blown up our backsides is going to move us. That’s why we own guns – because we don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or “cops will protect us.” We’re hardened cynics – usually as a result of being kicked in the teeth a few times in life. After all, wisdom comes from experience, and experience comes from getting something dramatically different than what you wanted. We also have long memories – longer than any other political voting cohort in the US. We never forget, and almost never forgive. That’s why politicians hate our guts. Oh, and we can recite large swathes of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, etc. That really pisses off modern day politicians – the NEA and Department of Education failed in their propaganda mission with us. We’re DoublePlusUnGood.

      Meanwhile, the rest of the population is enthralled by the antics of the Kardashian clan of slatterns and hairy-footed hobbits.

      Trump made his bones catering to the Kardashians’ audience. There’s lots more of those people than there are of us. Further, Trump doesn’t have to do much to convince us when the alternative is Hillary, a professional, cackling broom pilot who drapes her voluminous posterior in the finest designer Mao jackets that telegraph exactly how she sees her role in governance.

      I believe that Trump had two jobs in this debate:

      1. Not look like the crazy whackjob who has no mental filter, who is mean to girls, blah, blah. The press has fabricated a mythology around Trump for over a year now about what a woman-hater he is, what a loose cannon, what a moron, etc.

      Well, he didn’t look like a crazy, nuke-lobbing misogynist tonight. He came across as measured, mature and in command of his faculties – proving that the trip to Mexico wasn’t a fluke. Another couple of high-profile appearances like this one, and Trump has destroyed the meme the media has been trying to glue to him.

      The “not look like a misogynist” thing was especially important tonight. My experience and observations are that more women tune into the early debates than the later ones – women are looking to get their feelings assuaged early on, and then they tend to tune out, their minds made up unless something serious happens. You could see it with McCain/Palin and then with the Romney campaigns.

      Debating females on public policy is always a bear, because women will almost always retreat behind the “you’re being mean to me!” accusation when they start losing badly on the facts and logic. I’ve experienced this several times when debating women in California on gun control issues in the early 90’s. As soon as I’d start winning the argument on facts (and there were many less facts and figures with which to argue back then than there are now), they’d switch the argument to the emotional ground – that I didn’t care about children, that I was picking on them personally, etc. It’s a classic move by women, sometimes augmented with sniffles and waterworks, and I had to learn how to cut off this route of attack with logic before the women used emotion to bring it up in a debate.

      Trump had to moderate his responses so as to not look like he was beating up on Hillary, so as to not allow the media’s meme about him to resonate with the female viewers. Remember: televised debates are about perceptions more than facts. This is true all the way back to the Nixon/Kennedy debates in 1960. On the radio, Nixon won, hands down. Nixon owned Kennedy on foreign policy eight ways to Sunday.

      The people who saw the debate on TV came away with a completely different idea about who won; it was all about Nixon’s five o’ clock shadow and the worn soles of his shoes. Yes, I’m being serious.

      But back to tonight’s debate…

      2. Trump had to show he knows enough about policy positions, has positions of his own, such that he convinces voters that he’s got something different to offer than Hillary. And he does – he’s got a very different message on the economy than the DNC, which is all for open borders and supra-national trade deals, both of which are gutting the US economy.

      Overall, I think Trump did well enough tonight. Not a knockout, not a pile-driver on Hillary into the canvas, not a loss, he just met or possibly exceeded the low expectations that the press had erected for him with their memes about Trump being a savage loon. He can attack what she said tonight in ads, appearances when she isn’t in the room, through surrogates, etc. The important thing is to be seen to be treating Hillary nicely when she and he are on the same stage.

      People keep wanting someone to finish off the loathsome beast that is the Clinton crime syndicate with one savage swipe, one indictment, one jail term that finally takes out this clan of hillbilly grifter trash. Well, I’m sorry to tell y’all, that’s not the way this is going to work. The Clintons have a huge installed base of bootlickers in the media, non-profits, the deep state, the media, and academia. Then the DNC has bought off several minority cohorts with 40 years of transfer payments amounting to trillions of dollars. There won’t be a single slice dealt by Trump/GOP that cuts down the Clinton campaign. It’s going to defeated with a death of a thousand and one cuts, some with a switchblade, some with pruning shears, and some with cuticle scissors.

      • The people who saw the debate on TV came away with a completely different idea about who won; it was all about Nixon’s five o’ clock shadow and the worn soles of his shoes.

        I watched that debate on a B&W TV (my parents didn’t buy a color TV until B&W was no longer available). I was 7 years old. The thing I remember most was Kennedy as cool, calm, and collected, and Nixon with beads of sweat on his upper lip.

  9. Ok… Let’s get to brass tacks. The No Fly list is not a bad thing per-se if due process issues are dealt with. Trump mentioned exactly that.

    That’s the HUGE difference you NeverTrump retards were looking for.

    • Seriously?!? How much do you suppose it will cost in time and money if Trumpy and his cronies decide to put you on the No Gun List? Sure, 3 years later and $20,000 poorer you’ll get your civil rights back, but they can still be taken from you with nothing more than a few keystrokes from a bureaucrat’s fingers.

      • Did you actually READ my comment or are you just running the verbal diarrhea? What part of “due process” don’t you understand?

        • Sergei, Unless you are married to an attorney, or are foolish enough to serve as your own, due process costs money. Usually measured in the tens of thousands of dollars. If you want really effective due process, you hire a white-shoe law firm, where due process is priced in the hundreds of thousands.

        • Did you note how the government already owes you attorney’s fees when you get them to take you off of the list?

        • IF your lawyer gets them to take you off the list. If they refuse you’re SOL then?

        • That’s where judges get involved. They don’t get to just say “no” they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you should be on the list.

          By your logic, what’s to keep the government from just throwing you in jail?

        • Well, fortunately we all know there’s no anti-2nd Amendment federal judges sitting on the bench.

          Best case scenario is that get to buy your guns, you just have to wait 3 days every time you buy one, because just because they don’t charge you with a crime doesn’t automatically take you off the list. For that you need to get a lawyer and fight it out with the feds. I’m guessing most people will just take their 3 day suspension and keep their mouths shut. Sort of a de facto mandatory federal 3 day waiting (cooling off) period.

  10. Good grief. We don’t protect American’s freedoms by taking them away. Stop and Frisk is bad, the No-Fly List is bad, the No-Buy-Gun List is bad. It’s called Due Process. Societies create the environments they want to live in; it’s not color, it’s culture.

        • How much research did it take you to learn to trust the federal bureaucracy from infringing on your rights?

          The ‘no-fly list’ shouldn’t even exist in the first place, adding due process is just putting lipstick on a pig. Giving bureaucrats the ability to use the list to block Americans, even temporarily is just egregious. First they’ll have no problem finding anti-2nd Amendment federal judges to sign warrants. Let’s say you received am email back in 1998 from a Nigerian prince so naturally they have reason to believe you’re associated with Boko Haram. Here’s your warrant. So they just scoop you up for questioning and after 18 hours of interrogation your lawyer shows up and they drop the charges and you’re free to go and try making your purchase again. You’ll still have to wait 3 days though because your still not off the list, you have to sue the federal government to get off it. Nothing to fear here, you’ve got your due process! This is why the 2nd Amendment says ‘shall not be infringed’. It’s not even about trusting Trump (which I don’t), it’s about handing more power to unaccountable federal bureaucrats.

  11. Donald looked at a lot of strike balls tonight and didn’t swing. Although it is easy to critique after, not in real time, there were a lot of items left on the table – see all above. I would have been more impressed with a stronger stance on the 2A, including, “At least I won’t take the ability of women to protect themselves away”.

    When the talk turned to “Stamina” – The Hillary response “I stood in front of Congress testifying for 11 hours” should have been followed by Donald Trump saying – “If you didn’t leave 4 brave Americans to die in Libya, you would not have had to testify for 11 hours.”

    So many missed chances.

    • ““If you didn’t leave 4 brave Americans to die in Libya, you would not have had to testify for 11 hours.”

      That was a missed opportunity, but both of them were playing it cagey.

      I admit I was surprised by Trump’s overall performance, considering the little time he put into it and not doing any mock debates.

      Trump is smarter than a lot of people make him out to be…

    • Yeah, he didn’t prepare enough. And not that he needed a canned speech, but a list of barbs to attack on. He passed up a lot of balls in the strike zone.

      • Those barbs would have been counterproductive. He’s trying to appeal to moderates now, beating a woman like a rented mule on national TV is not going to do that.

    • Another missed home run by Donald. I don’t agree with the meme that he is so good a debates due to his “TV Reality experience”. I see little evidence of it – so many missed chances. However, he does not back down or spout platitudes (except for “I am great”). He needs to go for the jugular. So far, no MSM charges of him denigrating a woman, although it is still early and WILL happen!

      • That’s the point. He needs to look like a calm, rational president talking about issues while she’s a cackling witch throwing adhominems.

    • Well “Racism is in our DNA” says Obama.

      If he can get away with that, HRC is going to get away with her slander.

      The only way she would have been damaged is if Trump was quick enough to call her out right on the spot.
      He’s not that quick.
      There were at least another half dozen opportunities like that in the debate that he also missed.

      Few people would be that skillful….Prager, Hewitt, and a few other radio types that are fast on their feet.

  12. If you can’t use Free Speech to defend your Rights ….. you have no rights ! Michael Savage was removed from radio air today ….. in mid-show ( my prior comment was nixed ) … it’s not only media bias , but now Full Censorship.
    ————- Up yours gun owners …… your Free speech no longer counts. Buh-Bye. ————-

  13. Stop and frisk, is nothing more than a “Terry” stop. It is not unconstitutional according to a SCOTUS ruling. Terry V. Ohio is easily one of the most important case laws when it comes to police. It was emphasized when I was in the academy, and sets the standard for these sorts of police interactions. To summarize, the court upheld the legality of a pat down for the sake of officer safety to check for the presence of weapons. A routine traffic stop is also, basically, a type of a Terry stop. Plain view plays into any traffic stop as well. An officer only needs to articulate that they they felt reasonable suspicion was present in order for a Terry stop to be initiated. In the case of a traffic stop, it could be something as minor as a broken tail light, that is of course, if an ordnance/law is present that a broken tail light is a violation in that particular jurisdiction. In an on the street interaction, it could be something like loitering etc. When discussing how we should initiate this sort of interaction, they made it clear, that we were not to consider this carte blanche to do a full search of an individual, they made it clear that it was to be a check for weapons only, otherwise we could risk a “fruit of the poisonous tree” situation. Complete searches are normally only incident to an arrest. I will give a specific example to illustrate how this could go down. A college of mine was working an off duty job at a local Wal-Mart. He noticed an individual whose behavior appeared suspicious to him. This person was pacing back and forth near one of the entrances. The officer went and spoke with him and asked what he was doing, if he was waiting on somebody etc. The person was very anxious and agitated by my colleges presence. He at that point then decided to Terry frisk him for weapons. He found a gun and the individual was carrying without a licence. He admitted to having the intent of robbing the bank branch in that Wal-Mart. I do acknowledge that at times I have witnessed these frisks being used improperly and aggressively to find drugs and such, not something I have done though.

    • i believe the singular vital compnent, and the one most mis-used, abused , invented, and mis-construed in a Terry Stop is the reasonable suspicion (of a current, past or future violation). it must be reasonably deduced and can be articulated to a common person in society. This is where the stop and frisk practice ran afoul of the law. Your example of loitering is the perfect one…in many (most) jurisdiction the act of loitering requires some describable purpose or intent of criminality…not merely sitting reading a newspaper, yet many LEO effect a Terry stop and use “loitering” as their all encompassing pass to violate constitutional rights.

        • The “standard” is a joke. Cop merely feels like stopping you, he will. The poisoned tree was long ago made health food by the courts.

        • I disagree, there has to be some leeway for a cop to perform an investigation in a public space where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they can articulate a reason to stop and talk to you, they can pat you down if they have a reason to believe you are armed. In Chicago, that would be enough to get 90% of ganbangers off of the street. Pat down, find gun, throw in jail for felon in possession.

        • Sergei, 4th Amendment my friend, 4th.

          You have the right to do as you do, until there is a very good reason to allow the government to interfere with that. Random searches with anything being ‘probable cause’ or “suspicion’ are the things of your old homeland (and the people you despise).

          I really do not care if 12 guilty guys go free on some “technicality”, as long as the one guy who’s rights were violated goes free. The bad guys always get caught eventually, and until they do, it’s up to good citizens to protect themselves.

      • Wal-Mart can set it’s own polices on it’s property, the particular Wal-Mart has had problems with theft, and does not invite people to come in their store to just hang around.

  14. Donald is walking a thin line. He needs Democrats to vote for him. Although the nations problems are the result of Democrat policies, (supported also by weakkneed RINOs), he can’t directly attack them because that will freeze out those voters. Nevertheless, he has shown that he can lay it on “Hillary” (as opposed to BHO). DJT supporters understand the nuance, even though they are ignorant, non-schooled rednecks. Even D Americans are questioning the D.

  15. More swiffs by DJT (shouda woulda coulda): Hillary, you have never actually created jobs – except for lawyers to cover your corrupt practices.

  16. Didn’t watch – even when I like one of the candidates these things are like nails on a chalkboard to me. I was just wondering if Lazy Eye Susan showed up.

  17. One thing we have to remember, Trump shouldn’t be speaking to us.

    He has to be speaking to the idiots in the center with zero convictions and whose opinions blow in the wind of TMZ and Entertainment Tonight.

    You have to switch most of your brain off and listen from that vantage point.

    Think big picture themes, I can imagine that to that center he conveyed
    business
    power
    strength
    change

    I don’t know, I could imagine that a fair amount of that target audience would say he won.

  18. The GOPe hated Ted Cruz so much we ended up with this mess, two NYC elites arguing who can be more totalitarian. Not sure who won this “debate” but we all lost.

    And no, I am not a neverTrumper, I will vote for him. But my faith in his Constitutional adherence is minimal. Although his tax plan is very good, and gives me solid reason to support him, his position on guns over the years is pure waffle, from applauding the Clinton AWB in 1999 now claiming to be a RKBA stalwart. We will see.

  19. Told ya so, Trumpkins! Trump will take your guns slightly less rapidly than Hillary. Thanks for crowding out real conservatives on the primaries with your votes for this dolt.

  20. Azrael,
    I carry my concealed gun daily
    I have my concealed permit
    I keep it concealed on me even in gun free zones
    I can’t have police searching me at random and finding my gun and thereby losing my permit
    To everyone else,
    As for due process, how long can they deny my gun purchase while I pursue my ” due process”
    How much will it cost me to pursue my due process?
    What behavior do I avoid to keep off the list?
    How do I prevent mistaken identity?
    I was bitterly disappointed to Trump take such an anti gun stance
    As a single issue voter on gun rights, I now have a problem voting for him
    Even if Hillary is worse on gun rights

    • Go read the NRA proposal. It’s not hard.

      As for stop and frisk, clearly the issue is getting rid of “gun free” zones, not losing a valuable police technique.

        • That’s the one. If the “investigation” has a three day deadline, I don’t see a problem with this.

      • That statement isn’t much of a position and doesn’t include any limitation on the time period at which the government is allowed to suspend your rights. It does, however, reference Senator Cornyn’s bill, and so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that this is the bill they support. Cornyn’s bill gives the government 72 hours to produce evidence to deny the sale and arrest the suspect.
        I still have problems with this. The first of which is, of course, that they should have already arrested the suspect. Also, the bill does not allow you to know if you are on a list, and does not provide for the costs of your own defense. It also does not automatically get you off the list if you defeat that first 72 hour hold, and you could be forced to go through that process over and over gain.

  21. When Holt asked about stopping “home grown terrorism” he didn’t just say San Bernardino (wife was NOT home grown), he also included Minnesota. Minnesota was presumably the St Cloud case, which was not home grown either. But this is what happens when the commission selects leftists as moderators.

    As for Trump’s answer, note that he worked with the NRA on his position. Having said that, forget the position, and note that he worked with the NRA. That is a huge difference between him and the evil queen.

  22. What amazed me was that Hillary had just, mere moments before, stated that Trump’s stop-and-frisk proposal is bad because it is unconstitutional, and then suggested the also unconstitutional proposal of banning those on some government list from purchasing firearms.

  23. Whoever wins, what are the chances of our almost failed Republic surviving?

    25% chance Republic survives with Trump

    5% with Hillary

    What a craptastic choice.

  24. Several people have stated that Mr. Trump agrees with the NRA position on the Terror Watch lists, as stated here on the NRA’s website. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

    Searching Mr. Trump’s campaign website, and just using Google, I can’t find anywhere that Mr. Trump actually says that this is what he agrees with. I’ve found pundits saying that he “virtually agrees”, but nothing from Trump that says that the NRA’s position on the No-Fly/No-Buy list is the position that he wants to make policy.

    Can anyone point me to that?

  25. “The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death among young African American males,” Secretary Clinton stated. She then went on to state that our effort should be focused on taking guns out of the hands of people who “shouldn’t have them.” She then stated “I believe that common sense gun safety measures would assist us. […]

    Trump missed a golden opportunity by not pointing out the fact that Hillary is seemingly proposing 2A Jim Crow like laws. Did she not imply that the people who shouldn’t have guns are the ones killing young African-Americans which are statistically African-Americans? If voter id laws and imprisonment disproportional affect African-Americans, how would her “common sense” guns laws not do the same? That sounds racist to me by any measure of the left’s standards, if there is such a thing as leftist standards…..

  26. If I had been moderator, I would have asked them to turn around and read those words plastered behind them and then asked each one of them what it means:
    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

  27. Besides gun control, I got “We’re gonna tax the wealthy.”

    Gee, I thought we’d been taxing the wealthy for the last eight years. At some point, there will be people who decide they have enough money, and shut their company doors.

    • We still have situation where Warren Buffet pays less effective tax rate on overall income than his secretary.

      If you want to see what “taxing the wealthy” actually looks like, you’ll have to unwind all the way back to early 70s at the latest. Better yet, to early 60s.

      Coincidentally, also the period of remarkable American economic prosperity, the benefits of which were felt directly by all citizens…

      • Wow! You don’t normally see someone put 1970’s and economic prosperity in the same sentence without a punchline at the end.

        • Relative to today, the ’70s, in aggregate, were pretty darn good – despite prime being 17% for a minute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *