# It is in Hillary's interests to pound the message, "I don't want your gun!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 11, 2016, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416 "2016-08-11T05:46:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/41 "2016-08-11T17:36:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [Try this:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-on-guns-and-the-second-amendment/?utm_term=.2b32a7ef19e4) > > (my bold) > > Clinton is no friend to gun rights. Neither is Trump. > [@](#): > > You are wrong, very badly wrong. She absolutely supports a ban on assault rifles - there is no “maybe”. Universal background checks is not “all she wants”. Clinton supports a wide array of gun control schemes. You’ve characterized her support of gun control as limited where in fact her support of gun control is pervasive. It would be more accurate to say that Clinton supports more often than not any gun control measure that has a chance of passing. > > Clinton has campaigned against the PLCAA - legislation enacted as a result of municipalities attempting to bankrupt gun manufacturers in the US. She campaigned to the left of Sanders on about the only issue where she could move to the left of Sanders who voted for the PLCAA You want a litmus test. Don’t pay attention to what people do or say when their words will have no effect. The single most perilous moment for gun rights in recent history was in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. Hillary went into radio silence on gun control while Trump supported a the assault weapons ban. Bill Clinton wrote an op ed warning Democrats not to get carried away with gun control if they valued any of their other policy objectives because they would lose elections over gun control if they went too far. I don’t think Clinton gives much of a shit about gun control compared to a host of other issues. The main impact she will have on gun control will be nominating justices and she will not be picking them based on their stance on gun control. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/42 "2016-08-11T17:44:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Just googling Hillary Clinton and heller v dc yields a lot of results. > > [Bloomberg - Are you a robot?](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says) I don’t see how this supports that Hillary doesn’t believe the 2nd amendment includes the right to own firearms. Even Scalia said that this right doesn’t necessarily preclude some regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/43 "2016-08-11T18:08:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Seems like an obvious rhetorical question. I think the interpretation is influenced by your position - and that is intentional. You asked for a cite and that’s a cite. The response to whether the 2nd amendment codifies an individual right was answered in the conditional indicating that the individual right is in question. That’s enough for me. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think Clinton gives much of a shit about gun control compared to a host of other issues. The main impact she will have on gun control will be nominating justices and she will not be picking them based on their stance on gun control. Nominating justices is also enough for me. That you think Clinton doesn’t give a shit about gun control is wishful thinking. It’s been a continual campaign item for her and there is no evidence that all of that was bluster. I fully expect a landslide victory for Clinton, but I’m not kidding myself thinking it wont have a serious negative impact on gun rights. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/44 "2016-08-11T18:14:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Conservative courts adhere to precedent. Liberal courts adhere to precedent only as long as doctrine is liberal. Since quite a bit of conservative precedents have been set in the last couple of decades, I expect we’ll see a repeat of the New Deal court once liberals are a majority. All of a sudden all those old precedents will be overturned. How do you think precedent becomes precedent? Gotta love blanket statements about political ideologies…they’re _always_ correct. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/45 "2016-08-11T18:31:57Z")
It seems well supported that [Hillary Clinton “believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns”](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says). It also seems well supported that Hillary Clinton said [“the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk). (This quote seems to have been in the context of discussing a ban on “assault weapons”.) The problem is that _Heller_ didn’t strike down “safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns”. [_Heller_](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html) struck down a total ban on handguns, and also a law which provided that > [@](#): > > Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia. So, the pre-_Heller_ D.C. law made home defense using firearms effectively illegal. (“Common sense laws…like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns” would presumably only apply to homes where toddlers are actually present, and would also allow for things like the use of quick-opening safes for the storage of self-defense firearms, rather than mandating that firearms be kept both unloaded _and_ bound by a trigger lock.) Similarly, _Heller_ didn’t strike down a ban on “assault weapons”, it struck down a ban on _all_ handguns, along with “safe storage” provisions which made it effectively impossible for D.C. residents to possess any other firearm for self-defense. There is no reason to say “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” when advocating for universal background checks; the Supreme Court has never struck down such a law, and there is no indication that even a Supreme Court which included the re-animated corpse of Antonin Scalia would likely strike down such a law. There isn’t even any reason to say “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” when discussing bans on “assault weapons”–the Supreme Court (or a Supreme Court which included the re-animated corpse of Antonin Scalia ) might or might not strike down something akin to the original 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, which didn’t ban all guns, or even all handguns, of even all magazine-fed centerfire semi-automatic rifles–although its relative narrowness also made the 1994 ban kind of toothless. There’s also a [statement she made](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67) which appeared to support Australia’s “gun buy-back” program. There’s no question that the Australian law was, in fact, a gun _confiscation_ program–you couldn’t just tell the Australian government “Oh, no thanks, I don’t wish to sell my firearms at this time”–so _ **IF** _ she supports such a law in the U.S., she would be calling for confiscation of a large number of guns, from people who are otherwise law-abiding (not just “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists”). She has also made statements indicating a much more moderate stance on gun issues, such as from her [acceptance speech](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html?_r=0): “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” That sounds a _lot_ more like “universal background checks” than “have _Heller_ overturned, declare that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, and then enact laws mandating confiscation of large numbers of firearms owned by otherwise law-abiding people, and mandating that any remaining firearms be kept in a condition which makes it effectively impossible to use them for self-defense”. That _is_ pretty much the law in some other countries, but right now the Supreme Court has said that laws which are _that_ restrictive of the right to self-defense are unconstitutional in the United States. The problem is, she has said _all_ of these things–“I’m not here to take away your guns”; “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” (_not_ in striking down universal background checks, which has never happened, but in striking down laws which made it effectively impossible to keep firearms for self-defense); Australia’s gun laws would be “worth considering”–which means that anyone who supports an individual right to keep and bear arms finds her _extremely_ untrustworthy on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/46 "2016-08-11T19:15:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t see how this supports that Hillary doesn’t believe the 2nd amendment includes the right to own firearms. Even Scalia said that this right doesn’t necessarily preclude some regulations. Individual. The Individual right to own firearms. That’s what adaher said. When we talk about opposition to the individual right to own firearms we are talking about disagreement with the heller decision, for the most part. Hillary disagrees with that decision. Heller overturned a law in Washington DC where the “state” banned firearms to some extent or another. It wasn’t even a total ban but it was too much. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/47 "2016-08-11T19:17:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think the interpretation is influenced by your position - and that is intentional. You asked for a cite and that’s a cite. The response to whether the 2nd amendment codifies an individual right was answered in the conditional indicating that the individual right is in question. That’s enough for me. > > Nominating justices is also enough for me. That you think Clinton doesn’t give a shit about gun control is wishful thinking. It’s been a continual campaign item for her and there is no evidence that all of that was bluster. I fully expect a landslide victory for Clinton, but I’m not kidding myself thinking it wont have a serious negative impact on gun rights. Possibly but I don’t think trump is much better and I think you are kidding yourself if you think that this lifelong NYC Democrat is actually a supporter of the second amendment. I don’t think gun control is a very important issue for Clinton. She will do what is politically expedient on that front. if it pays to be -pro gun control, she will be. if it pays to shut up, she will. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/48 "2016-08-11T19:20:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > All it takes to rescind the 2nd amendment is to put a couple of liberal justices on SCOTUS who will just say that the 2nd amendment only protects the right to join a state militia. Assuming “a couple” means 2 - this would only be true if at least 3 sitting Supreme Court justices were to support this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Do you have any evidence that even one of them supports such a view? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/49 "2016-08-11T19:24:01Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Assuming “a couple” means 2 - this would only be true if at least 3 sitting Supreme Court justices already support this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Do you have any evidence that even one of them supports such a view? 4 justices were in dissent in Heller. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Possibly but I don’t think trump is much better and I think you are kidding yourself if you think that this lifelong NYC Democrat is actually a supporter of the second amendment. > > I don’t think gun control is a very important issue for Clinton. She will do what is politically expedient on that front. if it pays to be -pro gun control, she will be. if it pays to shut up, she will. I don’t think Trump is a friend of the 2nd amendment, but he isn’t as big of an enemy. In any case, I think if Trump were to be elected that he’d be incredibly ineffective and nothing much of his agenda would get done. Clinton on the other hand would be better at pushing her agenda because she is a better politician. If Clinton would back off if it paid to back off, well, then it’s important to make it known that it pays to back off. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/50 "2016-08-11T19:54:21Z")
I don’t think it makes strategic sense for Clinton to try to focus the election coverage more on the 2nd Amendment, as this seems to be an issue that motivates the Right more than the Left. She should focus on (1) Making reasonable proposals to address the issues her potential voters care about, and (2) Denouncing the outrageous things that Trump says. But “Hillary wants to take your guns” isn’t even in Trump’s top 50 most outrageous statements. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/51 "2016-08-11T19:57:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That interpretation makes no sense, but at issue in this thread is not our interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but whether the Democrats or Hillary Clinton believe in an individual right to bear arms. They do not. And if you don’t have that right, then you can do it only if the government lets you. and a lot of governments, including possibly Clinton’s future administration, may not let you. That’s already the case, since the right you are depending on is one stated in the Constitution–i.e. part of the government. And that only is interpreted that way because the Supreme Court interpreted it that way–again, part of the government. The fact that you are worried about the right being taken away by the government means it was granted by the government. Not that this has much relevance. The main issue is that Clinton has no reason to try and get the right removed, since she can do anything she’d want under the current framework. On the other hand, with Trump, all it would take is someone making him angry and he’d do it out of spite. Hell, given how the Republicans have treated him of late, I wouldn’t put it past him nominating a liberal judge just because of that. Once elected, he’d no longer have to answer to them. The thing about Clinton is that she’s predictable. Trump is not. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/52 "2016-08-11T20:05:58Z")
I will say, although I am a liberal and I support Clinton, that I think it’s probably true that Clinton’s Supreme Court appointees would be more likely to overturn Heller than Trump’s would. And if that _did_ happen, it would likely lead to more restrictions on firearms in some localities. I don’t think there is the political will to pass major _Federal_ gun control legislation, though, regardless of if Heller is overturned. But even if Clinton _supported_ the Heller decision, I don’t really think it would be in her interest to make this election about the 2nd Amendment. For most voters, there are other issues she can better use to make the case for electing her. Single issue gun rights voters, like single issue pro-life voters, will probably vote for Trump based solely on his proposed Supreme Court nominees. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/53 "2016-08-11T20:31:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Individual. The Individual right to own firearms. > > That’s what adaher said. > > When we talk about opposition to the individual right to own firearms we are talking about disagreement with the heller decision, for the most part. Hillary disagrees with that decision. > > Heller overturned a law in Washington DC where the “state” banned firearms to some extent or another. It wasn’t even a total ban but it was too much. I don’t see evidence that Hillary opposes an individual right to own firearms. Supporting some regulations does not necessarily mean she is against this individual right. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/54 "2016-08-11T20:55:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t see evidence that Hillary opposes an individual right to own firearms. Supporting some regulations does not necessarily mean she is against this individual right. It’s not just “own guns” Even in pre-_Heller_ D.C., people could “own guns”. However, all of those guns had to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” at all times, even in one’s own home. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/55 "2016-08-11T21:58:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t see evidence that Hillary opposes an individual right to own firearms. Supporting some regulations does not necessarily mean she is against this individual right. **Question** : Do you believe in the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? **Answer** : \*\* If there is such a right\*\*, then that right is subject to limitations. If that was the answer given, what do you think of the person’s views on the 4th amendment? Clinton was asked directly and she did not answer in the affirmative. She thinks Heller was wrongly decided. If she does believe in the individual right, then she’s doing a fucking terrible job of demonstrating it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/56 "2016-08-11T23:02:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > **Question** : Do you believe in the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? > **Answer** : \*\* If there is such a right\*\*, then that right is subject to limitations. > > If that was the answer given, what do you think of the person’s views on the 4th amendment? Clinton was asked directly and she did not answer in the affirmative. She thinks Heller was wrongly decided. If she does believe in the individual right, then she’s doing a fucking terrible job of demonstrating it. It’s possible to interpret it that way. It’s possible that I have bias that’s affecting my analysis, and it’s possible that you do too. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/57 "2016-08-11T23:12:25Z")
It’s not only possible I have a bias, it is a certainty. And when you say that you “don’t see evidence…” when evidence is presented, it is a certainty that you do as well. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/58 "2016-08-11T23:17:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > **Question** : Do you believe in the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? > **Answer** : \*\* If there is such a right\*\*, then that right is subject to limitations. > > If that was the answer given, what do you think of the person’s views on the 4th amendment? Clinton was asked directly and she did not answer in the affirmative. She thinks Heller was wrongly decided. If she does believe in the individual right, then she’s doing a fucking terrible job of demonstrating it. Not to mention her openness to Australian-style gun confiscation, or her naming of the NRA’s 4 million+ members (along with the Iraqis) as one of her greatest enemies. You’ve got to be living in another world at this point to not understand Hillary Clinton’s complete disdain for guns and gun owners, and her intentions towards them. To me, this is a huge blunder. I haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan’s first run, or a Democratic presidential candidate since forever. Trump disgusts me, but I’ll be damned if I’ll vote for a presidential candidate that includes me as one of her greatest enemies. If Clinton didn’t have this blatant animosity towards the second amendment, I’d probably pull the D-lever for the first time this year. As it is, I’m leaning Trump. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/59 "2016-08-11T23:27:27Z")
How can she take your guns after Obama already did? How did Obama do it after Bill Clinton already did? Or maybe you’re falling for fearmongering. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416/60 "2016-08-12T01:35:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > How can she take your guns after Obama already did? How did Obama do it after Bill Clinton already did? > > Or maybe you’re falling for fearmongering. In January, I am planning to write something on my FB feed like “Wait, you mean he’s leaving the White House? But I thought Barack Obama was a communist, socialist, Islamo-fascist dictator?” I’ll probably get cricket sounds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-in-hillarys-interests-to-pound-the-message-i-dont-want-your-gun/762416.md?page=4)