Did you watch the END of the debate? Our country's future and the 2nd Amendent is in danger!

[John Galt]

Hillary has had 30 years to get things done. Her husband was a former President for Pete's sake! Why should I trust her to suddenly "get it right" and "make a difference"? I believe the truth is she will continue to tax the middle class to give benefits to the poor. She will not tax the wealthy because they can take their bag of marbles and leave the country. Trump seems to realize this and knows that taxing the rich has to involve some enticements for them. I think he is the only one who could ever have a chance to do such a thing.

Let's not forget the ghost in the room, the Supreme Court selection of nominees. Anybody here want to give Hillary the ability to put people in power for 30 or 40 years?

Excellent post.

[drjoker]

Actually, with telomerase technology just around the corner, those Supreme court justices could be around FOREVER.

Hillary has had 30 years to get things done. Her husband was a former President for Pete's sake! Why should I trust her to suddenly "get it right" and "make a difference"? I believe the truth is she will continue to tax the middle class to give benefits to the poor. She will not tax the wealthy because they can take their bag of marbles and leave the country. Trump seems to realize this and knows that taxing the rich has to involve some enticements for them. I think he is the only one who could ever have a chance to do such a thing.

Let's not forget the ghost in the room, the Supreme Court selection of nominees. Anybody here want to give Hillary the ability to put people in power for 30 or 40 years?

[Bitter Clinger]

[Charlies.Contingency]

.........I was against him when he said that he would unconstitutionally stop and frisk everybody.

I'm not Trump's biggest fan, but actually he never said that. But he did say he'd encourage police to use that tactic.....which means that some people will get stopped and frisked, but not "everybody".

Now that said, the moderator and Clinton both flat out lied when they said it was unconstitutional. "Stop and frisk" is a "Terry stop" - okayed by SCOTUS in 1968, and legal ever since. The objection in NYC was that black people were being stopped and frisked out of proportion to their representation in the general population. That's easily explainable........more of them are committing crimes. That's not racist. That's just a sad fact of life in the ghetto. So more of them are acting in a manner that invites a Terry stop by NYPD. Now, what the debate moderator and Clinton ALSO lied about is this: The NY judge to called stop and frisk unconstitutional was actually thrown off the case because of her well-publicized bias against police. AND, what the moderator and Clinton both lied about is that the decision did NOT stop the stop and frisk policy, because Mayor Bloomberg (a gun owner's best friend ) continued the policy. It wasn't stopped until the current commie got elected - Bill de Blasio. He's the one who stopped it, long after the bad judge was tossed off the case.

Here is a more detailed explanation of that particular issue, and how it was lied about in the debate: https://patriotpost.us/posts/45077. Whether or not Terry stops are a good idea, I'm not the definitive opinion. I'm uncomfortable with them, because I can see how that authority can easily be abused......but I also can see the utility of the practice from the law enforcement side well enough to understand that as long as it isn't abused, it can be another good tool in the LEO toolbox.........as long as it isn't abused and heavy handed.

Remember how Hillary was supposedly worried about having this Moderator, who is supposedly a Registered Republican? I still take him for a liberal. It was obvious which candidate he was for in my opinion. My wife, who doesn't watch the news, and refuses to listen about politics, watched the debate with me. She barely knows anything about the canidates or the moderator, but she asked me part way into the debate, "Is that guy one of Hillary's supporters or something? It sure seems like it to me the way he is prodding at Trump."

I agree with you about the stop and frisk TAM. It is a very questionable tactic from my LEO perspective as well. It is unfair to those that are statistically breaking the law. I think in places like Chicago, something similar should be pressed, because of the amount of crime. I don't believe in violating people's rights, but something needs to be done. Adding more restrictions to law enforcement in this area just lets the criminals run rampant. There is no perfect or right way. Unless one of you can come up with the dream solution to gangs roaming streets, terrorizing communities, dealing drugs, and killing people. It is sad when a bunch of gang members on the corner with illegal drugs and guns, can continue about their business without interference, lest they cry out that they are being targeted because of their race.

A VOTE NOT FOR TRUMP IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY.

[a.nonimous]

Im personally ok with stop and frisk --- just ask, Ill tell you i have a weapon in my pocket and a permit in my wallet --- none of us who've gone through the process to legally carry a weapon for self protection have any reason to fear..... I carry to protect myself and my family from those who DON'T follow the law. If we could get guns out of the hands of criminals we would be in better shape ----- those who follow the law have nothing to worry about --- same principal as anything else. just my 2c worth.

but hillary....... she would be the biggest threat this nation has ever faced, a compulsive liar is not what we need in office- ever

[mojo84]

Did you watch the END of the debate? Our country's future and the 2nd Amendent is in danger!

I think many of us realized this long before the end of the debate.

[Liberty]

Im personally ok with stop and frisk ---

The problem is if we don't hold precious and value the 4th amendment, losing or watering down the 1st can't be far behind. Maybe they can start ignoring the 2nd too. We can't just pick and choose just the parts that are convenient. Turning our back on the constitution is a one-way street, once we lose these rights its gonna be tough to get them back.

[XinTX]

Im personally ok with stop and frisk ---

The problem is if we don't hold precious and value the 4th amendment, losing or watering down the 1st can't be far behind. Maybe they can start ignoring the 2nd too. We can't just pick and choose just the parts that are convenient. Turning our back on the constitution is a one-way street, once we lose these rights its gonna be tough to get them back.

^This. I have serious issues with 'stop and frisk' as well.

But even more troubling from the 'debate' ne food fight was that BOTH agreed on the idea of "no fly/no buy". I have serious heartburn with the no-fly list to begin. Now they want to use this to allow a nameless bureaucrat to put any name they want on "the list". No adjudication. No probable cause. No crime committed. Just someone with the right access types in your name and poof, bye-bye exercising your 2A rights. If they go "no fly/no buy", I wonder how far they'd go if you get added to "the list" and you have several registered NFA items.

[infoman]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

[Bitter Clinger]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

[mojo84]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

Beyond just saying "she is the one best qualified for the job", specifically what accomplishments and policy positions make her your preferred candidate?

[n5wmk]

It's dumb for anyone to think that Clinton would somehow do away with license to carry on Texas. People feared that would happen when Obama was elected too, & that was dumb. I'm voting for Hillary & proud of it. That doesn't mean I'm "anti-gun", it means I have the common sense to know that Texas will still have the license to carry regardless of who's president. It's a state issue. Assuming she gets elected, I'll be here 4 years from now telling everyone "I told you so" when there will still be a Texas license to carry just like there is now.

She may not be able to do away with LTC in Texas, or any other state for that matter. But she, and a Supreme Court stacked with justices that share her beliefs, and a congress that won't oppose her, could make it so difficult transfer firearms you already own or to purchase new firearms, magazines, ammo and reloading components, she could make it effectively a firearms ban. Just my opinion.

[vjallen75]

She may not be able to do away with LTC in Texas, or any other state for that matter. But she, and a Supreme Court stacked with justices that share her beliefs, and a congress that won't oppose her, could make it so difficult transfer firearms you already own or to purchase new firearms, magazines, ammo and reloading components, she could make it effectively a firearms ban. Just my opinion.

There are so many things to fear about Hillary being president, IMO the biggest fear being something of this magnitude. A firearms ban takes away our God given right to defend ourselves, family, and neighbor from a tyrannical government created by her. As Jusme's signature says "Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second"

[striker55]

Hillary makes me mad when she spouts off that she will take the high road. Have you seen her commercials? All her commercials are about Trump, she has nothing good to say about herself. How she can even be running for President is beyond me. The next debate will have a Fox News moderator, maybe he will ask Hillary the hard questions.

[MechAg94]

IMO, a start for Chicago might be 1) encourage gun ownership and concealed carry, 2) liberalize self defense laws/restrictions, and 3) allow deadly force to be used for protection property. Not likely to happen.

Wasn't there a group in Houston that was providing single shot shotguns to poor people with some training?