World PoliticsSocial IssuesMilitaryEconomyUS PoliticsActivismGovernment

The 2nd Amendment Versus Gun Control: Stakeholders Analysis

Updated on October 4, 2017
peoplepower73 profile image

Mike has a keen interest in the effects of politics in our culture. He has a unique way of simplifying complex concepts.

2nd Amendment/Gun Control Stakeholders Map
2nd Amendment/Gun Control Stakeholders Map | Source

Introduction

I have written many hubs and participated in many forums on Gun Control and the 2nd amendment. And I have come to the conclusion that it is a complex and interactive issue involving many factors. Therefore, this hub is an attempt to map the interconnections and interplay among the stakeholders and major elements in this highly controversial subject.

The diagram in the introduction is my attempt at connecting the major elements of the 2nd Amendment/Gun Control Issue. I will guide you through each of the elements, so as not to overwhelm you with the entire diagram at one time. The following are who I believe are the major stakeholders:

  • Gun manufacturers
  • NRA
  • Congress
  • Gun shows and the internet

I have tried to stay as objective as possible, but I have provided links to my articles for further reading.

2nd Amendment

It seems all of the controversy focuses on two main factors: The 2nd amendment and gun control. Therefore, this is where I will start my discussion. Here is the 2nd amendment: "

One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to them and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

See if you can find the differences in the two. Hint: It's in the capitalization and punctuation, not the wording. I really don't know what difference that makes or what their intent was.

2nd Amendment/Gun Control
2nd Amendment/Gun Control | Source

Gun Control

The basic arguments for gun control center around do more or less guns make us safer? Those that argue for gun control believe that banning certain types of guns and high capacity magazines will make us safer. Those that argue against gun control believe that allowing everybody to have a gun will make us safer. Here is an article I wrote with more information on gun control and the 2nd amendment.

Gun Manufacturers
Gun Manufacturers | Source

Gun Manufactures

They manufacture all types of guns and supporting equipment. The major ones are:

  • Rifles of all types
  • Hand guns
  • High Capacity magazines
  • Machine guns
  • Ammunition

They also have a vested interest in the 2nd amendment and gun control because it can affect their bottom line. Their main client is gun stores. There has always been much controversy over what constitutes an "Assault Rifle and High Capacity Magazines."

NRA
NRA | Source

The National Rifle Association (NRA)

The NRA was founded in 1871 and is an American nonprofit organization that promotes the following:

  • Law enforcement training
  • Firearm safety
  • Marksmanship
  • Hunting and self-defense training.

The NRA is also a 501(c)(3) and its lobbying branch is a 501(c)(4) organization. These are non-profit Super PAC designations. To find out more about Super PACs read my hub here.

The NRA is affiliated with the following tax deductible groups and lobbying groups:

As one of the largest certifying organizations for firearm safety, the NRA provides firearm safety training and proficiency training courses for police departments, and recreational hunting, and child firearm safety. The NRA also publishes several magazines and sponsors marksmanship events featuring shooting skill and sports.

NRA's political activity is based on the premise that firearm ownership is a civil right protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The group has a nearly century long record of influencing as well as lobbying for or against proposed firearm legislation on behalf of its members. Observers and lawmakers consider the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington. NRA membership reached 4.5 million in 2013.

Source: Wikipedia

Congress

Congress on both sides of the aisle have a vested interests in the 2nd amendment and gun control. One part of congress is up for re-election every two years. Therefore they need money for their campaigns. Part of those funds come from NRA lobbyist via the gun manufacture lobbyist with most of it encapsulated in Super PACs.

In 1994 congress enacted the ban on assault weapons with a sunset provision that in 10 years the ban was to be lifted, and it was.

Congress is also involved in deliberating for and against weapons bans and background checks. They also legislate federal and state law enforcement bills. The Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is under their control. Read my article here on how the ATF has been hobbled by congress

Congress
Congress | Source
Fear
Fear | Source

Fear

Although fear is not a stakeholder, it can be a great motivator and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense. There is a fear of anarchy, tyranny, and terrorism in this country that motivates people (stakeholders) to buy and sell guns of all types to protect themselves of all types of eventualities.

Gun Shows and the Internet
Gun Shows and the Internet | Source

Gun Shows and the Internet

Gun shows and the internet provide a forum for transacting gun sales. These transactions may be legal or illegal. Many illegal gun sales are made in the parking lots of the gun shows.

Many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

Criminals have a source for transactions where they can buy guns from legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers.

There are web sites that allow private sellers to offer guns for sale to other private purchasers. Buyers can contact sellers via phone or email to set up the sale, and avoid going through a federal background check or even leaving a paper trail. Such transactions are more anonymous than purchasing a weapon at a gun show, where people who can’t pass a background check can buy large quantities of guns.

Source: PBS Frontline:

Opinion Poll

Here are a series of questions that are related to this subject. I would appreciate you answers so that we can measure everyone's opinions.

Do you believe that gun manufactures are funding the NRA?

See results

Do you believe that congress' campaigns are funded by gun manufacturers and the NRA?.

See results

Do you believe that fear plays a part in motivating gun sales?

See results

Do you believe that gun shows and the internet are two of the biggest sources of illegal gun trafficking?

See results

The Mentally Ill

I purposely left out the mentally ill to the end of this article because it is so difficult to assign cause, effect, and cure for them. There are those who say that criminals will not obey the law so why change any of the gun control laws.

But they are not the ones involved with mass shootings, it's the mentally ill. Yes, technically, the mentally ill are criminals as well. But in a sense, they are criminals after the fact, not before they have committed the crime.

But, they are still the ones most involved in the mass shootings. They can obtain their weapons from any of the sources I have outlined. Preventing them from creating these crisis is a difficult as predicting when these crisis will occur. And yet, the only way we know is when these crisis actually occur. What are your thoughts on this issue?

I hope this article has given you a new way of looking at this very controversial issue and thanks for taking the polls. As always, your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 6 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: I think Brad completely missed what a stakeholders analysis is about. Where was he when the paper was blank?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 6 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: As I told Brad, he should write a hub on each one of the paragraphs he presented to me in his comments. Thanks for dropping by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 6 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: Maybe everything you say is true, but how do you map all of that into a stakeholders analysis? A stake holders analysis analyzes the rights, responsibilities, and harms that each stakeholder has on the other stakeholders. I tried to put it into a graphical interface that shows the interaction of each stakeholder, not to assign blame or solutions. It is a very complex issue as evidenced by the details of your comment. Each paragraph, you have presented could warrant an article on its own. Why don't you write hubs about them?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      BTW, I don't think Mike was trying to prove a point, he said he wasn't taking sides. It seems to me he was just trying to define the issue.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, we have gone over this before, but for the others benefit, what are you implying when you say "Half of the gun deaths are suicides"

      If you are saying that if there were no guns at all, as in they were never invented, then the 16,000 who killed themselves with a gun, would have found another way to do it? And we are not even considering the tens of thousands more who tried but didn't die. Are you saying all of them would have tried another method too?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 6 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      I am sorry to say that this hub doesn't shed any light on gun control or the 2nd amendment.

      Half of the gun deaths are suicides, and that should focus on why people want to kill themselves. There are other means to commit suicide, so that issue transcends guns.

      It might be linked to the 20 plus billions of dollars of illegal drugs coming across the US border Every year. Also coming across the border are guns, that no legislation will contain. You want an open border, well that is how these illegal weapons, drugs and other contraband get here in bulk.

      There are already significant laws regarding fire arms, but they haven't been enforced. Either because there was not enough or no budget given to enforce them.

      As we have seen in the several years, guns are no longer are biggest terrorist threat. Other methods from trucks, cars, bombs and even knives and axes have effectively been used to cause damage and panic in our streets, and around the world.

      There are know people that have mental problems that still have their guns, but there hasn't been a significant budget to fund government agencies to get these guns out of their possession.

      The criminal element will always be able to get firearms. And the super majority of gun owners will never use them illegally. It is like the TSA doing a 100% check on lawful citizens to find a few, a very few potential terrorists.

      How are states that have lawful conceal and carry laws doing compared to the states that have rigorous laws against guns?

      Along with the illegal drugs, and illegal weapons coming across our unprotected southern border comes the MS 13 gangs from Guatemala, and other criminal gangs. These should be the target by the border patrol and US law enforcement. There aren't enough resources to do the TSA approach.

      Targeting these gangs and their criminal activities will do more to get gun violence under control than a blanket the is 90% lawful citizens and lawful use.

      We have lost the War against drugs, and the War against criminal gangs.

      BTW, how do sanctuary cities that keep known criminals from being deported help gun violence or general criminal activity. These are the convicted felons that served their time in US jails and prisons being allowed back on the streets. And these cities even protect those that have been deported more than once.

      Having these felonies, these foreigners wouldn't be able to get into the country through the existing federal immigration laws.

      Every crime they commit here because they weren't deported were crimes that would have never happened if they had been deported.

      There are over 2 million people in US jails and prisons. It is not only very expensive to keep them, they are being forced by judges to release tens of thousands of them early because of overcrowding.

      Remember also that our biggest terrorist attack in the US was allegedly the result of terrorists using box cutters. So maybe the more effective tactic would be to target the criminal rather than their choice of weapons.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 6 months ago from Placentia California

      My Esoteric: I'm looking forward to you reading the article and your feedback. Thanks for the quick glance.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I haven't read your article yet and don't know where you stand on this issue, but a quick glance tells me I am going to like the presentation.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 12 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      There are Mises Institutes in the US, such as at Auburn University. Mises is a highly respected think tank and is not just "some" source. As for the statistic itself, the murder rate in the US is the murder rate, so them being Austrian should not change that fact since I am pretty sure 2+2=4 over there too. As it does everywhere. Remember; math is the language of the universe.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Sorry about that. There are several ways for viewing comments on hub pages one of them does not show previous comments. I don't know if you realize it or not, the chart you are showing is from an Austrian website. Do you really want to trust them? Here is their about page:

      WE ARE THE WORLDWIDE EPICENTER OF THE AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS MOVEMENT.

      The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The Institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.

      Here is an America web site, that says more guns more gun crimes.

      http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter...

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      Are you serious or just trying to give me the run around? Please see my comment above where I attached a link showing the murder rate.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Can you show me the statistics you are talking about and how they are derived?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill can you show me the statistics and how they are derived?

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      No, we determined it by following the Constitution and looking at facts such as the murder rate going down as gun ownership goes up. Bad guys have always had access to guns; legal or illegal. Now that the honest people have guns to defend ourselves, thing are getting safer. Common sense approaches like that tend to blow gun control nuts' minds.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 12 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      Thanks for telling me. I will comply. Sorry.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt. Prepper: I don't believe in conspiracy theory. Please don't use my hub to promote your theories. If you keep it up, I will not post your comments.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 12 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      TRUMP LIED when he said Obama "was born in the United States".

      The Freemasons must have threatened his children & grandchildren.

      I would think BHO's Social Security number 042-68-4425 stolen from a Connecticut man would end the birther-debate once and for all.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Yes and in the mean time we have terrorists that still have easy access to mass killing guns and others who shoot police officers. A good reason is relative. That is just an excuse by you and others. Why not try it and see what happens? No, you guys have pre-determined it is not going to work, because the terrorists, mentally ill killing innocent children, and shooting police officers is not good enough to justify our reason, because statistics are hard to come by.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt Prepper: If Trump gets into office, you won't have to worry about marshal law being declared. It will be WWIII and it may even be nuclear.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      DTMB: If banning any further sale works. why would they want to confiscate everybody's guns? How would they even go about doing it? There are probably more guns than people. Contrary to most people's beliefs, we have a constitution and a congress for a reason.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      peoplepower said: "The liberals don't want to confiscate or eliminate everybody's guns. They want to ban any further sale of AR type weapons and high capacity clips."

      Yes, but they are doing it under the ruse of saving lives. The reality is a national law needs to make a large impact, but eliminating AR's will not make a difference in the murder rate. It's not that people aren't against eliminating AR's; we just don't believe Gun Control advocates when they say they only want to eliminate AR's to save lives because it will not save a significant amount of lives. As a matter of fact, it will not even change the murder rate one percentage of a percent. This is what you are not getting. It is not like people want to own AR's, therefore they are against gun control. As a matter of fact, most gun advocates don't own them. The reason no gun control laws can pass are that the gun control nuts haven't given a good reason for gun control. The only thing the ownership of guns does is DECREASE the murder rate, not vice versa.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 12 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      Thank God "Keep & Bear" will always mean own and carry!

      It is most important Americans own and maintain weapons on par with those of law enforcement officers and soldiers as those are the very people we will have to defend ourselves and our families from once martial-law is declared.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 12 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      There is only one reason stopping the left from confiscating all guns, that is the second amendment. Did it not exist they would have confiscated all guns long ago and you know it. Ask any liberal today if they could ban all guns would they, the answer would be absolutely yes, so if that is their desire why do you think they won't proceed to do anything in their power to achieve it.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: The liberals don't want to confiscate or eliminate everybody's guns. They want to ban any further sale of AR type weapons and high capacity clips. If statistics show that eliminating hand guns would decrease senseless killings then I'm for banning any further sale of them as well.

      The problem is when gun advocates hear "gun control" they immediately think, the feds are coming for their guns. That is not the case. The 2nd amendment protects against that. Yes and there are people out there that think if Hillary becomes president that is one of the first things she will do. But they forget, repeal of rights has to be approved by congress and is not going to happen.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      First of all, I did not use a false equivalence. I would not normally compare obesity or heart disease to gun fatalities, but was instead comparing them to your statement about the importance of saving a life no matter how small the number.

      Secondly, you said: "You don't get it do you? If you don't control the easy access to AR type weapons, it makes it easier for everybody to get them including terrorists who use them for mass killings."

      Yes I do care, which is why in one of my previous statements, I said: "I have no problem limiting the crazies from getting guns, limiting clip sizes, and eliminating AR's."

      My problem is not with gun control. My problem is the excuse that liberals are using for taking the guns. They keep saying they want to only eliminate AR's nationally and in the same breath they say it is because they want to save lives, but the elimination of AR's would not make a difference nationally, but eliminating handguns would. Therefore I have to believe that there true intention is to eventually work to eliminate handguns, which they think can eliminate existing murders by use of guns, but this is false because one cannot give a quantitative number on the amount of lives saved by private citizens owning a handgun. Gun ownership has risen and the murder rate has shrunk, so it is without saying that these two statistics go hand in hand. I mean, you are a believer in facts and statistics right?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: You are using a false equivalence to make your point. This is typical of gun people. Just because you equate everything that can kill, does not equate it to killings by guns. You don't get it do you? If you don't control the easy access to AR type weapons, it makes it easier for everybody to get them including terrorists who use them for mass killings. It's just a logical conclusion from your statement. Therefore there should be laws, whether it is statistically insignificant or not.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      You said: "therefore it is statistically insignificant and does not warrant a law"

      Yes, I did say that. A federal law warrants a significant change, otherwise it is not worth making. I mean, if you really care about saving lives then why not ban cigarettes. They are not good for anything and they kill more people than probably all guns put together. Obesity kills more people than guns, so why not ban food? It would save lives.

      See what I mean? So I find it odd when someone has an agenda disguised as "life saving". Sorry for my skepticism, but I ain't buying it. There are too many other things that kill people.

      What I did not say was that I am: "O.K. that terrorists can have easy access to AR type weapons and mass kill innocent people"

      That is a bit of an exaggeration. That would be like me saying that you are OK with the government controlling every aspect of our lives. That you want a Fahrenheit 451 situation. But I wouldn't say that because that is a bit extreme.

      peoplepowder said: "Are you a guest or a member of hub pages?"

      I am a guest.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: This is what you said. My replies are in parenthesis.

      "I get an uneasy feeling when pro-gun controllers use the excuse of murder to eliminate a type of gun because it will not make a difference on the grand scale. (therefore it is statistically insignificant) AR murders are used in less than 1% of murders committed. (therefore, they are statistically insignificant) Some people will say that any lives saved is worth making a law, but that is bologna because a national law must make a difference on a grand scale to be made."

      (therefore it is statistically insignificant and does not warrant a law. If there is no law, it makes it easier for terrorist to have access to AR type weapons and mass killing a lot of people. But that's O.K. " because a national law must make a difference on a grand scale to be made." (therfore, the murders from AR15's are statistically insignificant on a national scale and do not warrant a law.)

      Are you a guest or a member of hub pages?

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      I think you may need to go back to my comment and read it again because I said nothing remotely like that.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Then your are saying that is O.K. that terrorists can have easy access to AR type weapons and mass kill innocent people, because those type of killings are statistically insignificant compared to all murders; therefore, it does not warrant a law?

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      Back to the topic of your Hub, I would say I agree with Ben Freedom's comment made 3 years ago (above). I have no problem limiting the crazies from getting guns, limiting clip sizes, and eliminating AR's. Just don't try to tell me these things are the solution to people getting killed because it is not. I get an uneasy feeling when pro-gun controllers use the excuse of murder to eliminate a type of gun because it will not make a difference on the grand scale. AR murders are used in less than 1% of murders committed. Some people will say that any lives saved is worth making a law, but that is bologna because a national law must make a difference on a grand scale to be made.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: You are right. We all make mistakes. I just approved it.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      Peoplepower

      I am not sure why you didn't allow my comment. It didn't have any personal attacks or anything. That is just kind of odd that you didn't allow it yet you addressed it.

      As for getting off topic, I also commented on gun control but you didn't address that.

      As for ran or run, let's not haggle over minor things. We all make mistakes, yourself included.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: This is what you said: "John Kerry has ran for President and is also Secretary of State, but I don't see anyone going after him."

      This is why I said: "Oh, they went after John Kerry when he ran for President. They Swift Boated him....google it."

      This is what you said:"Of course they went after him; he was running for president. Show me a presidential candidate who didn't have people "go after" them and I will show you Gary Johnson. lol That is what people do when they run for president; talk bad about other candidates."

      You can't have it both ways my friend. And also It's "John Kerry has run. Not John Kerry has ran."

      By the way, you are right about them not going after John Kerry. It turns out he, Colin Powell, Condalizza Rice, and George W. all used private servers for government work. But nobody went after them. So why Hillary? Because the right wing propaganda machine did and is doing a fantastic job to demean her, because she represents a threat to their agenda. This Hub is about the 2nd amendment and gun control, not Hillary. Let's get back on track.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      peoplepower said: "Oh, they went after John Kerry when he ran fore President. They Swift Boated him....google it."

      Of course they went after him; he was running for president. Show me a presidential candidate who didn't have people "go after" them and I will show you Gary Johnson. lol That is what people do when they run for president; talk bad about other candidates. Clinton and Marla Maples, Bush and cocaine, Obama and Bill Ayers, Mitt Romney and the 47% comment, Andrew Jackson and his bigamist wife, etc. But only then did they go after him. Other than that, he has been free of drama for all that I know.

      As for your study on neuroscience; I agree because I see it everyday. I always try to provide facts when I can, but for some people there is nothing that can change there minds. Especially those who are older and settled in their ways.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 12 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Oh, they went after John Kerry when he ran fore President. They Swift Boated him....google it. I read something the other day written by a doctor of neuroscience. He preformed studies on people who thought they were smarter than others in certain subjects, but it turns out they didn't have he knowledge that others who really did know the subject, but they wanted to show that they were superior than others in that area. He said they were too dumb for them to know they were stupid in that area of knowledge. And the people who did have the knowledge thought they did not know enough about the subject. The other thing he discovered is that people like consistency, so if you believe a certain way, you are going to try to stick to that consistency, no matter what the facts show.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 12 months ago

      Peoplepower said: "Wild Bill: Sure democrats want people to own their own homes. That is not the root cause of the financial meltdown,"

      I was actually correcting your statement from when you said: "You are wrong about the democrats wanting everybody to own houses. That was Bush"

      Are you playing both sides when it suits you the best?

      peoplepower said: "I look at it the other way. Gun advocates including the NRA are trying to scare us into thinking we have to guard ourselves against a black president and his tyranny."

      We don't have to scare anyone; we already have our guns. It is you guys that are resolving to scare tactics to change the laws.

      I gave you facts, not opinions. The murder rate is at its lowest when Gun Freedom is at its highest. The numbers don't lie.

      peoplepower said: "There are 30 years of accusations about Hillary, not 30 years of evidence. Don't you think after 30 years of evidence there would be enough to prosecute her."

      Remember; Al Capone was only prosecuting for tax fraud, but do you really believe that was the worst thing he did? Or was this just a conspiracy by the US Government against one of its private citizens. I don't think so. Plus, if this is a Right Wing conspiracy, then why is it only her and not other Democrats they are going after? John Kerry has ran for President and is also Secretary of State, but I don't see anyone going after him.

      Where there is smoke, there is fire. Or as Terrell Owens said: "If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, then by golly it is a rat."

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: Here is what factcheck.org says about the whole financial crisis. Answer this, why are derivatives called derivatives? I'm through.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-ec...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      Here is what Bill Clinton, who signed the bill to repeal Glass Stegall, and chose not to Veto it

      -----------

      "There's not a single, solitary example that" signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall "had anything to do with the financial crash."

      — Bill Clinton on Tuesday, August 11th, 2015 in an interview with Inc. magazine

      --------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      It may be the end of your story but it doesn't change the facts that these bundled derivatives were filled with bad loans. And the contracts were fraudulent.

      And once again, there wouldn't have been any profit from these contracts because the underlying bad loans would not be profitable, but would go down in value as the bad loans started to crumble.

      These derivatives couldn't have been any better than selling salted gold mines.

      You are going to blame all of this on the republicans, again both parties are too blame for everything. Still don't get it.

      Obama instead of focusing on bringing back the economy and helping the victims of the financial institutions spends his first two years on Obama care. Those two years the democrats had all the power, and they wasted it on Obamacare. Meanwhile the victims got nothing from the government, and the banks were not even loaning bailout money to each other much less the victims. The victims lost their homes, jobs, and livelihood.

      I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it, why?

      Is AIG any more under control than it was in 2008, and what about the Wells Fargo fraud creating fake accts from their customers. The entire Wells Fargo Board, and all the senior mgmt need to be indicted, but the DOJ and the FBI have to wait for Obama to tell them what to do.

      And Hillary Clinton is going to what as president? She has failed at everything she has been involved in the government.

      Accomplishments must benefit the country and the people, not the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

      And this detour was yours because you blame the republicans for not funding the gun control. So why do the democrats keep on asking for more and more gun control. While the terrorists are using bombs, knives, and trucks.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: This is what a derivative is...end of story.

      http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/12/derivat...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      Without bad loans, and Freddie and Fannie letting them pass there wouldn't have been any derivatives. The purpose of the derivatives was to get the bad loans in with the good loans. And make profits from selling the bad loans. The FRB then bought $40 billion a month for many months saying they were stimulating the economy. But what they were really doing is hiding the evidence of the fraud committed by the financial institutions and the government. None of the bubble could have been sustained without the FRB keeping the interest rate artificially low. Keeping them low forces people into the stock market and other investments than savings.

      I don't find anything entertaining.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad, no it was my points. You just don't realize it. Here you might find this entertaining.

      https://youtu.be/Q-zp5Mb7FV0

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      You made my point

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: If Glass Stegal was never repealed, you think all of this would have still happened? The banks would still be able to still create the bad loans and sell them to the investment companies? You don't think AIG and credit default swaps were insurers? Derivatives were not created by the banks, they were created by the investment companies. Banks loaned the money. Investment companies companies including Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac packaged the loans, but investment companies and banks manipulated the markets.

      You would rather vote for an unknown who makes it up as he goes along by appealing to people's fantasies, lying and slandering his opponents, then vote for someone with 30 years experience who has even been accused of everything including murder by the right wing propaganda machine.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: I can see you really don't understand what commingling assets really means. Glass Stegal was as set of laws that prevented commercial banks from commingling their assets. The major factor of the 1929 crash was because of that very reason that commercial banks and investment companies commingled their assets. In 1933, Glass Stegal was a set of laws enacted to prevent that from happening again.

      When Glass Stegal was repealed that allowed commercial banks to make sub-prime mortgages that did not require any qualifications and contained variable interest rates. The removal of Glass Stegal allowed those bad loans to be sold to investment companies and bundled into investment instruments, including Mortgage Backed Securities, Collateralize Debt Obligations, and derivatives, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were part of the process that allowed the packaging of the loans.

      Derivatives are like when you go to a sporting event, there is a score, If you bet on the score is going to be with a bookie, that is a derivative. The derivatives market at the time of the crash was 60 billion world wide. It affected more than just our country.

      A Credit Default Swap is when an investment company sell those bundled investment to a client knowing full well that the variable rate loans are going to kick in, they buy a credit default swap from an insurance company like AIG. When the investment defaults, they get paid from the insurance company and the insurance company get a cut.

      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the conduit through which the money flowed. If it wasn't for the removal of Glass Stegal the manipulation of loans would not be possible. It was law.

      There are 30 years of accusations about Hillary, not 30 years of evidence. Don't you think after 30 years of evidence there would be enough to prosecute her. I know the corrupt DOJ protect her...for 30 years?

      Brad: This hub is about the 2nd amendment and gun control not about the financial meltdown and Hillary. Let's get back on track.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      What is the point of making detailed points if you don't respond to each one.

      As far as your answer, the derivatives are only the packages of the bad loans, The bad loans themselves are the problem. The rest is just greed by the players, But it was the banks that created the product. Bad loans.

      No bad loans, no derivatives and no bubble.

      Freddie and Fannie were the cornerstone of those products, And they are the government insurers that were complicit. I don't care whether is was dem or republ, it was up to congress to protect the people and they didn't.

      The same thing was true with the Dot Com.

      Seriously Mike

      You are going to say bad things about Trump, when there are 30years of evidence of bad things about the Clintons.

      The US doesn't need anymore Bushes, Clintons, or Obamas. They all failed the country and the people while enriching their own goals.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt Prepper: Oh God, here we go again. What crimes has he committed, he asked?

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      The truth rings true no matter who speaks it. Eastwood is twice the man Bathhouse Barry is. Why would an honorable patriot like Eastwood, or I, lie about our president's birthplace? Kenyan-born Obama is the only one who stands to gain by that lie. This treasonous usurper deserves the appropriate punishment for such heinous crimes - a firing squad of U.S. Marines.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt Prepper: So you believe Clint Eastwood is a credible source? That shows me, you are going to vote for Trump. He is about as credible as Clint Eastwood.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: I suspect that you want me to reply to your every paragraph, but I'm not going to do that, it is too time consuming for me and is an exercise in futility. You and I are basically saying the same things but in different ways. The problem with explaining the financial meltdown is that it is far too complex to cover every aspect of what created it in a reply like this. Many products are innovated and designed here and are shipped overseas to be manufactured by cheap labor and then shipped back here and around the world for consumers. Many high tech companies including Apple do this.

      Do you understand what commingling of commercial banks and investment companies means? Ir means that is what made the packaging of loans into MBS', CDOs, derivatives, and credit default swaps possible. If Glass Stegal was never repealed this would not have been possible. Obama tried to get it replaced, but the republican congress and the banksters would not hear of it.

      Those investment instruments were supposed to mitigate the risk, but they did not take into account that owners were not able to make the payments once the VMRs kicked in. Therefore all of those investment instruments became toxic and the banks and investment companies had to be bailed out by TARP under the request of Hank Paulson in the Bush Administration to the tune of 700 billion. None of that would have happened without the repeal of Glass Stegal. There would have been no credit default swaps where investment companies like Goldman Sachs could take out insurance from AIG and bet against toxic assets that were sold to their clients and then get paid for them by AIG when the assets when down the tubes.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      I didn't forget the people that control congress, but it is implicit in my statement about loyal party voters that let their party be run by them.

      Bill Clinton signed the bill that replaced Glass Segall, but the real problem with the real estate bubble was not the derivatives that took the credit for the meltdown. It was the underlying policy applied by Freddie and Fannie to take away the conservative (financially conservative) policies of making loans. Like the down payment to ensure that they bank had equity in the property in case the borrower fails. The plethora of loans were inventive, creative, and flimsy. They were only good as long as the FRB kept the interest rates low, artificially low. This was important because most of the loans were variable interest and some even had negative amortization. Raising the interest rates would have sunk many of these loans, and the bubble would have collapsed early. Creating the bundled derivatives actually kept the bubble, and it seems that the politicians thought it would have held until after the election.

      That was the surprise of congress, not that the economy meltdown, but that it happened before the election.

      The everyone to get houses was started during Clinton, and Bush didn't do anything to stop or reduce it. The search for the guilty doesn't undo the facts. It took a village, meaning Congress to allow this to happen. And they could do it because the loyal party voters didn't tell them they were against it. The root cause and the sine qua non of the economic disaster starts and ends with the loyal party voters, and their desire to keep the party as their God, when it should be the other way around.

      I have several questions, not here, but in the ? category that mention 28 years of bad presidents, bad because they didn't accomplish anything beneficial for the country or its people, and continue the decline of the US.

      As for the US having no products because it is sent overseas, once again is caused by the loyal party voters not controlling their party. Their party is the mechanism that allows these third parties to become super global conglomerates that have merged and acquired most of the US businesses. They have almost entirely crushed the small to medium business people. This was American Capitalism, and now it is almost gone.

      We have the technology, but all we do is design the products, but they are built overseas, and then we import them. In the case of China, they not only have cheap labor but they also devalue their currency. It is the one two punch that has us on the economic floor. They get paid in US Dollars and then buy up property and resources in the US like they owned the game of monopoly.

      Blaming one party or the other doesn't change these facts since the 70s. Both parties have had their control, and it didn't change the facts.

      The Congress has long ago lost, or more likely been bought out by these companies that you say Trump can't control. But he hasn't had his turn at bat, but both political parties have been for several decades. So Trump is the only external variable that can break the political Homeostasis?

      Paradigm shift, really, can you explain the paradigm, and how it is shifting?

      There are no changes in congress, the laws they create, or any return of jobs, and one of their answers is raising the minimum wage.

      That is a paradigm joke.

      Our economy is feeding off of itself, as we no longer have any industry. Bill Gates almost doubles his wealth since 2008. And there are more billionaires today then before 2008. The economy is being held together because the FRB continues to keep the interest rates low. Low interest rates are not identified with a robust economy, it is more associated with putting a body on life support.

      The shrinking of the middle class while the Gates double their assets, and pay tax rates less than most of the middle class is because the congress won't get rid of the Federal Income Tax which favors the poor and the wealthy. The Wealthy have thousands of way to deal with taxes through the Internal Revenue Code. The poor don't pay taxes, and the middle class only has a few in that code.

      Most of the technical skilled jobs are being filled by foreigners from countries all around the world. The schools and colleges in the US are jokes that cost several hundred thousand dollars to get a degree. The student loans of the past are still not paid back, and many students can't afford or just step away from paying them back.

      Mike, yes 104 degrees is hot, but the congress, and the political parties are so cold they could be served in ice drinks.

      As long as people stay loyal to their party the US will never prosper again. They will be in continual wars, and will watch other third world countries, or the big non super power countries take over.

      I am not a republican, or a democrat, and that is why I can pick who ever makes more sense for the presidency, and congress.

      We have had more than 50 years of bad government in California. They like the US Congress have only seen the potential of more people being more tax revenue. But they have not kept up with the resource infrastructure to keep up with providing for this huge population.

      We can't even get a High Speed Train built because of politics. And we can't finish the 241 in over twenty five years.

      There are so many things that even the 8192 characters are not enough.

      I have written many hubs with thousands of words, but when they receive no interest, why bother, and that is why I do questions. I even wrote a hub for you once, because you said 250 characters was not enough, but you chose to avoid it.

      Once again, bottom line.

      NEITHER Party has the Answers, But BOTH Parties have contributed to the Problems. The dems and the repubs have a totally diametrically opposed ideology and yet we the US only have One Congress, and One President. Both have been ineffective since the 1970s, and they have only gotten worse in this century.

      BTW, I was wrong, we do have products, but we don't export them,we sell them to the government. WAR products, there is always a new model to pay for.

      California is a Desert, and we can never count on nature to supply water.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 requires the eventual elimination of private property as those who don't own property are easiest to manipulate. In 1981 CIA Director William Casey told a new President Reagan "The disinformation program will continue until everything the American public believes is a lie." That day is here now.

      Clint Eastwood said "Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated against the American people."

      I hate Big Brother & so should you.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: I look at it the other way. Gun advocates including the NRA are trying to scare us into thinking we have to guard ourselves against a black president and his tyranny. Isn't that what the 2nd amendment is about is guarding against the eventual threat of tyranny by our government or the self-protection against evil https://hubpages.com/my/hubs/comments#from other sources?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      DTMB; Read this about what really happened with the CDC funding from a real news site, not from guns and amo and gunowners:

      http://wpo.st/TDs-2

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Wild Bill: Sure democrats want people to own their own homes. That is not the root cause of the financial meltdown, It was VRMs and the packing of those loan into exotic investments that caused the financial meltdown.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 13 months ago

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: You are right about congress losing, but what you failed to mention is the lobbyist and how they control congress.

      Every two years, there is a large sum of congressman who are up for re-election. Studies show that a large percentage of congressman spend 30 to 70% of their time finding donors and raising money for their next campaign.

      There is a constant interaction between lobbyist, congressman, corporations and big moneyed interest that influences the decision making, our laws, and the outcomes in Washington. Super Pacs and big moneyed interest fund congressmen's re-elections, not small donations.

      If Glass Stegal had been in place, chances are there would have been no financial meltdown. It prevented banks and investment companies from commingling there assets.

      You are wrong about the democrats wanting everybody to own houses. That was Bush:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbu...

      We have no products to sell because of the division of labor. Our products are manufactured overseas because of the cheap labor. It's the fault of the big moneyed interest and corporations that want to keep labor costs down. If you were running a company, wouldn't you want cheap labor costs?

      Trump thinks he is going to be able to bring back jobs, but he has to fight the big corporations and lobbyists who are not going to allow that to happen because it will affect their bottom line.

      We are not in a downfall, we are in a paradigm shift. There are many jobs available if one has the right skill set. It is technology that is changing rapidly, but there are many jobs available for the technically qualified. We still have the best colleges in the world where people from all over the world come to get educated. Those that don't have the skill sets should be able to retrain into jobs that are in demand.

      As far as not answering, I told you this before. Your questions require answers that are more than 250 characters long. They cannot be answered by True, False or Agree, Disagree type answers You should use the forum format, if you want people to give in-depth answers.

      It's going to be hot today in the O.C. Stay cool my friend.

    • profile image

      Wild Bill 13 months ago

      It is funny how gun control advocates (especially the ones that drive mass media) are trying to scare people into thinking the US is going to Hell in a hand basket and violence is rampant because the US is becoming the Wild West again due to the ownership of guns. Actually it is the opposite. Most people don't realize that we have the lowest murder rate since 1957.

      https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-yea...

      It seems that not only are we safe despite the amount of guns in the US; we are actually safer because of it. Go figure. The fearmongers would rather scare us into following them instead of actually providing facts.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 13 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      Brad there is a lot of truth in what you say. It is depressing when you think of the path the country is and has been on while career politicians in both parties sit there and allow it to happen representing no one but themselves and their desire to get re elected solely to keep their "power."

      Speaking of which, peoplepower, again you put words in my mouth and argue against that straw man. You never quit do you. Doesn't using the same transparent tactic all the time get boring, try a little creativity. That is not debating it is deception.

      I never said it is "a matter of how long one party has been in office" did I? Yet you derail my comment which, now please listen clearly ( I know YOU can't or won't but for your readers), was that if you say and I quote "It's the republican congress that is not willing to fund it." (meaning fund gun control laws) while the Democrats have been in control of congress most of the time you are being disingenuous, no actually lying, because if congress isn't funding it the Democrats are even more responsible for that than the Republicans, and I'll bet money that congress has funded gun control laws because I can't find on the internet where they haven't.

      Unless I am wrong your statement about Republicans not funding gun control laws is a total lie. Of course it's not enough to put words in my mouth then you have to change the subject of my comment to Republicans shutting down the government and opposing Obama, things that are totally unrelated to the fact you lied blaming Republicans for not funding gun laws.

      However Tip O’Neill presided over two-thirds of the government shutdowns since 1976. According to the Washington Post O’Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place. O’Neill or the democrats were never called terrorists for shutting the government down over budget negotiations, a constitutional right.

      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360135/when-...

      PP, you are a pathetic excuse of a propagandist.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      Blaming the Republicans doesn't help the country, and the real cause is the loyal party voters. Both parties are diametrically opposed to each other, and that is failure. Voting for one party won't change that and it just becomes a seesaw as each party gains control.

      We have one team called Congress and when it loses the country loses. It doesn't matter who gets the blame, we lost.

      In the last 8 years, the billionaires have almost doubled their wealth. Bill Gates is up to 75 billion dollars, and he already gave away, well gave to his foundation 32 billion dollars. Did the average wage earner double their wages? NO.

      I asked a question that no one answered. What have the presidents in the last 28 years accomplished for the country and the people. NOthing.

      Since the 70s the US has been in decline and it hit bottom in 2008. Both parties are to blame. The entire congress spent 2007 and 2008 campaigning.NO one was running the country.

      Don't blame it on Glass Stegall or the Republicans. The democrats set the real estate bubble in motion by having their goal that anyone should be a homeowners. Freddie and Fannie dropped their standards and the real estate loans were flimsy and without any equity. Especially the negative amortization loans. The FRB kept the interest rates low, artificially low, because if they raised it, the loans would have failed real early in the bubble. The 1.5 trillion dollars to bailout the economy went to the banks and institutions that caused the failed, while their victims lost their homes, jobs, and livelihood. They finally ran out of unemployment money and dropped off the statistics.

      Neither party supported the middle class, and now the middle class is disappearing in to the lower class. 46 million people on welfare. Kids living with their parents until they are in their mid twenties.

      We have no industry or products to sell. We sell healthcare, insurance, and the big money like google, facebook, twitter and the like sell advertisements. China devalues their money, so they export their products into the US and we have little to export except jobs, and businesses.

      How does being a loyal party voter of either party help the country or the people?

      Neither the democrats nor the republicans have any solutions, but both of them contribute to the downfall of the US.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      DTMB and Brad: It's not a matter of how long one party has been in office. It is a matter of how both parties work together for common causes. The republicans have shutdown the government many times because they did not want to raise the budget, unless they could defund planned parent hood. They actually hold the country hostage. When the head of the republican senate says their goal is to make Obama a one term. president and then they block his every move, including asking for more money for gun control, who is to blame? When the republican mantra is reduce big government spending and they reduce funding for gun control when they are being paid off by the NRA lobbyist, who is to blame?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      As long as people think the problems are caused by the other party, they will never be fixed. And that is what is happening with the two parties, The end result is decline. Who caused it the loyal party voter.

      DTMB

      Thanks for the list. So why do the democrats keep trying to make more laws on gun control when they should be getting the funding for the existing wars.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 13 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      The republican congress? It's been a democrat congress throughout most of history, again you know nothing.

      Party Years in Full control of congress over last hundred years

      Democrats: 57 yrs

      Republicans: 27 yrs

      Neither Party: 16 yrs

      So by your reasoning. the democrats are more to blame than the Republicans

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad; Enforcing them takes money. If congress is not willing to fund it, the laws will not be enforced. It's the republican congress that is not willing to fund it.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      My point is that we have adequate gun control, and like the Immigration laws we just need to enforce them.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad: I think maybe the sequestration that was enacted is holding up the funding. Thanks for dropping by.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 13 months ago from Orange County California

      Mike

      We already have GUN Control.

      The problem is that the federal government doesn't fund it so that it is timely, and its investigation of the people has enable enough resources. As for the mentally ill, I read one case where there was 20,000 people in Los Angeles that were known, and on a list that they were gun owners but no longer had the mental capability and their guns would be taken away. The problem is that the funding wasn't there and it would take three years to go through the list.

      BTW, the Australian gun control and especially their gun buy back isn't really working according to what I read. The part that I didn't like at all is according to their law there is no self defense using a gun.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 13 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      Yes and that is not a violent statement nor is it anything like what you say he said, putting words in his mouth.

      "Gun control people" refers to the gun lobby and people that spend money to stop zealots like HRC and is active in elections.

      You just admitted you were wrong. I suppose your damaged mind is more adept at analysis of what Trump said and/or meant than Rudy Giuliani. Even CBS says the Hillary camp is responsible for your interpretation. And you can't charge Trump with having said something his adviser said which Trump said he disagrees with.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-defen...

      I don't know why I'm giving you this CBS link because I know you won't watch it or read it, you are happy being blind.

      The secret service investigated both of them? AND WHAT DID THEY FIND? PP your analyses are nothing more than PP.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Dont Taze Me Bro: This is what Trump said from your site:

      "If she (Hillary) get to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know."

      He is talking about Hillary picking a Supreme Court Judge to replace Scalia. Why would he reach out to a specific group like gun owners? Why would he have to reach out to anybody about her picking a judge? Why didn't he end it with the first sentence? He implied gun people maybe there is something you can do. What can gun people do that others can't do? They can carry guns and they can shoot. He incites violence and condones it whenever and where ever he can get away with it. I don't put words in anybodies' mouth. He makes statements that allow you to infer what you want from them based on whether you support him or not. He calls it Truthful Hyperbole. Not my words, his words...google it.

      Here is the evidence that one of Trump's advisors said Hillary should be put in front of a firing squad. Trump never disputed it.

      http://www.wmur.com/politics/baldasaro-doubles-dow...

      If these two incidents were not endangering Hillary's life, why did the secret service investigate both of them?...google it.

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 13 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      Even that NYT article never says" he asked Hillary to be put in front of firing squad" or "asked the 2nd amendment people to take her out." These are things I quoted from you, what you say he said, putting your words in his mouth which you do constantly even with hubbers. Somehow something that is said goes in your head and comes out your mouth distorted. You can't blame Trump for your cognitive shortcomings.

      If you want an honest assessment this is what you should read, http://spectator.org/no-trump-did-not-call-on-seco...

      not the NYT which everyone knows is just a shill for the left, even so it doesn't say what you said Trump said, it just reported what the left and right said about his comment. You can't find anything that supports what you say Trump said. No surprise though coming from someone who thinks Hillary never lies.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      DTMB: This is what happens when you live in today's digital world. Everything is recorded for the world to see. including Trump's comments.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/dona...

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 13 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Mike...I'm not responding to any idiot's baseless, moronic trash. If I treat him like one of my patients with passive-aggression, he'll cry like the baby he is.

      Pls see your HP email. There's something you need to know.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Don't Taze Me Bro: Calling somebody Coo Coo for Coco Puffs and telling someone they are going to burn in hell is not even equivalent. Did I provoke him? No it was the other way around. Asking for Hillary to be put in front of firing squad; asking the 2nd amendment people to take her out; and asking for her secret service detail to be removed carries a lot more evil weight than calling someone coo for coo puffs. If you and Sgt. Prepper can't handle it, they maybe you should grow a pair. Maybe what you are calling Paula as a split personality is her and just like me getting fed up with the Trump supporters foolishness. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings and Sgt Prepper's. I didn't realize you were so sensitive.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Paula: Thank you so much. I appreciate your comments. Their parents must live in shame, but I don't think they do.

      You have a great week-end to Paula

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 13 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Mike.....I have not stopped by to offer my opinion on this topic but you have written an excellent article/hub. Perhaps one of of the more clear and sensible on this topic I've read lately......considering how controversial.

      I really wanted to say that it is a disgraceful indication of the younger generation and offensive to the values & ideals you & I were raised into, to see some of the childish, disrespectful, unnecessary & basically futile comments left by clueless self-proclaimed know-it-alls. If they weren't so disgusting, they might be at least entertaining as smart-ass-piss-pot Comedians. Their parents must cringe in shame.

      Have a good week-end, Mike.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Dont Taze Me Bro: I'm glad you understand my reply to Sgt. Prepper. I figure it is just about right for your comprehension level. By the way, where is Tazeland?

    • Dont Taze Me Bro profile image

      Banned cause of pissants promisem and deantraylor 13 months ago from TWO OF THE MANY LYING LIB CRYBABIES OF HUB PAGES

      PP, glad to see you've enriched your knowledge from diddlysquat to cereal commercials. That is progress, you get a star for trying harder, keep on trying.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt Prepper: O.K. Now I understand where you are coming from...coo, coo, for coco puffs.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      Will your eternity be in Heaven with the virgin-born, Son of God, Jesus the Christ OR in the lake of fire with the Kenyan-born son of a porn-star Obama the Antichrist? Jesuit Pope Francis is the False Prophet and Allah(the devil) completes the unholy trinity of these last days. Soon will be the Rapture, martial-law & Tribulation. Then comes The Judgment.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Shyron: Thank you again. Yes even if they ban assault weapons, it means they will do it on any further sales. They are not going to do the impossible task of confiscating all the guns and repeal the 2nd amendment. But because of all the right wing propaganda, that's what gun owners hear. Thank you for stopping by.

      Blessing to you as well.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: No where in that article or the video did I hear or see anything about Hillary wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment, even though in the first paragraph, the article states that she does. She talked about a buy back program like Australia has. But she also said she did not know the details.

      This is what happens when people jump to the conclusions that they want to hear and see. You have to be careful about what you post. Conservative Post (CP) is more than likely a fake news site that promotes conservative ideas and spins the truth. These sites are very good at doing that. Trump is hoping people will do just what you did.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 13 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Shyron, you might want to check this out before commenting.

      http://conservativepost.com/hillary-clinton-reveal...

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 13 months ago from Texas

      Mike, this is a fantastic hub. I know that anyone who says Hillary wants to take away the 2nd amendment rights are not thinking clearly or the NRA got to them. Hillary wants the same restrictions that was in place when Bill Clinton was President.

      Ban assault weapons, that is all.

      Blessings my friend.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 13 months ago from Placentia California

      Sgt Prepper: Yep, you are definitely one of the deplorable ones. You must be very proud of yourself. You will probably be given a uniform when you join the TST (Trump Storm Troopers.) They were called the SS in Nazi Germany. I wish you a long and prosperous career. Thanks for dropping by.

    • Sgt Prepper profile image

      Gunny Cracker 13 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

      Thank God "Keep & Bear" will always mean own and CARRY! And especially in these last days with radical Moslems, militant socialists, gays with the HIV, inner-city thugs, BATF agents and a treasonous usurper in our White House. GET READY!

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      How in the hell are they going to repeal the 2nd amendment. You do know how the government works right? A law to repeal a law has to pass both houses of congress and the president. And if it is going to be repealed it has to be repealed by the Supreme Court. I'm not going to argue with you any more. I can see you are hung up on projecting the future, which can't be proven or unproven because it may or may not take place in the future. It is based on fear.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      "no one is coming for your guns..."

      Repealing the 2nd Amendment -

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-...

      You answered your own question. What new gun laws will prevent the carnage of these mass shootings? None.

      What is going to stop the killings in Chicago? (increased 50% this past year alone under the Obama Administration and his Chief of staff Rham Emanuel now mayor.) Where is the outrage?

      Don't be naive. Here is how it goes,

      1. appeal to the emotions of people after a mass shooting.

      2. enact stricter gun laws.

      3. killing persists...

      4. politicians say we must act to save the children... repeal the 2nd amendment only common sense solution.

      5. Confiscate all guns...

      6. After a major disaster, enact Marshall law and suspend all elections...

      7. A tyranny government that will be hard to remove...

      Think this is fantasy?

      Ask the Germans before Hitler came to power.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      No one is coming for your guns, as long as the 2nd amendment is in place. You are playing the What if game, that gives you the mental state that you will lose control, unless you have power. You regain that power by having guns to ensure your liberty and peace.

      I find it interesting that tyranny only becomes an issue with gun people when a democrat is president. If a republican is president, all is well. The whole right wing tyranny situation only took place after Obama became president. While George W was president everything was fine. The NRA and the gun manufactures exploited that situation by selling millions of guns and earning million of bucks while funding congressman's campaigns with the understanding of stopping gun control laws.

      The other thing I find interesting is that gun people say that gun laws have never worked in the past, why would they work today. Therefore they are not willing to even try to institute new gun laws. We are living in a different time than the last 10 years with newer technology that can saves lives. Now we make it easy for terrorist to have access to high capacity automatic military style weapons.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      BTW, here is where I see in 2016, we have a President that expands his power using executive actions, an opposition party refuse to use their power to impeach or the power of the purse, a Court packed with 4 liberal judges that will vote with the president on any issue from ACA to immigration... One additional liberal judge could over turn many of our laws. On the other hand, if Trump were to be elected, he could do the same and reverse all the liberal policies and more. Are you just as comfortable giving up your guns? You have to look ahead and preserve the Constitution. It's the only sure way to insure our liberty. Peace.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      You seem to be very savvy with our Constitution.

      Do you believe the President has the power to change or re-write our laws?

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      I don't believe it would every come to that, but that is part of your value and belief system...so be it.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      The Constitution, balance of power is just one aspect. It does not insure our liberty without the 2nd Amendment.

      The latest ruling by the Supreme Court on immigration is a prime example. A 4-4 decision on something that should have been an 8-0 slam dunk. It is possible for a President to seize power over the other two branches if they choose to go that way, a corrupt legislature and a biased court... The last resort when that happens is left to the American people - hence the 2nd Amendment.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      The constitution itself prevents that from ever happening. The constitution provides a balance of power. The constitution will not allow a dictator to takeover the country, because the constitution limits the power of the president.

      All of this talk of tyranny is brought about by right wing propaganda, because they don't like Obama.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      I have thought about it. Who decides what is acceptable for people to own?

      Without the 2nd Amendment cast in the Constitution, at some point in our history, some politician will try to rule with tyranny. With popular opinion on his side, he would be able to issue marshall law and enslave the public whom he suppose to serve. That is how dictators in other countries come and go. The way I see it, the 2nd Amendment is an insurance policy. It is there to insure that no government present or future, will even attempt to over reach their power and try to seize control. There are 100 million weapons in homes that no one knows for sure. The only way to rule is to go door to door. No sane politician will dare to try it.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      Have you ever thought about what our lives would be like today, without the 2nd amendment? People could still buy guns, but there would probably be much more control of the illegal purchase of guns and there would not be any military style weapons allowed for civilians. The 2nd amendment is a right. If you don't exercise it, you don't lose it.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      I read your other hub on the 2nd Amendment and you agree with my assertion that if you want to keep guns out of the public, you need to change the 2nd Amendment which in our Constitution requires a high bar.

      We have plenty of gun laws. Answer this question, will additional gun restrictions do anything to stop these mass shootings? If the answer is yes, I would support it. If the answer is no, why bother?

      The 2nd Amendment serves a higher purpose. You might think it is obsolete in modern America, but I disagree. It is an insurance policy to preserve our liberty and freedom.

    • peoplepower73 profile image
      Author

      Mike Russo 15 months ago from Placentia California

      Jack: I have other hubs that address the 2nd amendment. I'm not going to engage you because I have heard the brainwashing and fear mongering before. It's an exercise in futility to argue with people who's motivation is based on fear of tyranny and think that all guns are going to be confiscated. Thanks for dropping by.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 15 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Very interesting perspective but you fail to address the underlying reason for the 2nd Amendment. Most Americans were never taught the Constitution. Do you know the reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment? If you do, the debate on gun control is moot. Either Congress appeal the 2nd Amendment as some on the left wants, and confiscate all guns, legal and illegal, no amount of gun laws will prevent these mass shootings by terrorists or the mentally ill.

      Guns is not the only weapon of mass destruction as proven by Oklahoma bombing.

      On the other hand, if you agree with the 2nd Amendment, and the reason for it as envisioned by the founders, you will thank God that we have that right to defend ourselves...from foreign and domestic...and even an overreaching tyrannical government.